DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. A complete explanation can be found on pp.2-14 of the previous Final Office Action mailed 02 December 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. A complete explanation can be found on pp.14-21 of the previous Final Office Action mailed 02 December 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility
Applicant argues:
1) The claims do not recite hydrinos, fractional quantum numbers or a sub-ground-state hydrogen atom;
2) The specification, e.g., Fig.4 showing a spectrum in the 5 nm to 450 nm region of ignition of an 80 mg silver shot comprising absorbed H2 and H2O, provides concrete empirical evidence of operation;
3) Papers by Hagen et al., Booker and various Youtube videos provide additional evidence of operability & evidence no law of nature is violated; and
4) Miscellaneous papers, videos and “independent validations” support hydrino theory.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Regarding (1), the response given previously in the 25 February 2025 Final Office Action, pp.23-24 is noted. In short, although not explicitly claimed, the “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma…” and the “…at least one of light and thermal output from the plasma…” (claim 1) implicitly includes hydrinos. The abstract, for instance, discloses the power generator “provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos identifiable by unique analytical and spectroscopic signatures…” and the ignition system comprises “an electrical power source that provides low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to the plurality of intersected molten metal streams to ignite a plasma to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to forming hydrinos….” Further, the specification ¶[0351] teaches the term “hydrino reaction” is one among several which “…refer to the reaction such as that of Eqs.(15-18)) of a catalyst defined by Eq.(14) with atomic H to form states of hydrogen having energy levels given by Eqs.(10) and (12).” Eq.(12) sets forth fractional quantum numbers n used in the equation for the energy levels of hydrogen En given by Eq.(10). Per ¶[0335], these fractional quantum numbers “...replace the well known parameter n=integer in the Rydberg equation for hydrogen excited states and represent lower-energy-state hydrogen atoms called “hydrinos.”” Thus, when read in light of the specification, the claimed “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma…” refers to endothermic (i.e., “hydrino”) reactions defined by Eqs.(15)-(18) that produce hydrinos. Further, hydrinos by the specification’s own definition comprise fractional quantum numbers and sub-ground state hydrogen. Moreover, the utility of the invention is contingent on the existence of hydrinos, because “the energy gain due to forming hydrinos” is what the system uses to “generat[e] at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy” as claimed.
Regarding (2), the spectrographic measurement as evidence of utility is irrelevant in that it is only an effect of the fundamental cause at issue (i.e., the claimed “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma…”). This reaction, as noted, inherently comprises hydrinos, but hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry. Reasonable skepticism as to the causes disclosed as fundamental to the operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility is thus proper. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986). The asserted utility is inconsistent with known scientific principles and it is “speculative at best” as to whether attributes of the invention (i.e., hydrinos) necessary to impart the asserted utility of power generation are actually present in the invention. In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding (3), with respect to the Hagen & Mills paper on an electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) “proof” for the existence of hydrino it is not clear how a collaborative study of Mill’s own theory can be considered “independent”. Further, the reference carries little evidentiary weight because its claims for “proof” of molecular hydrino contradict the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, including cited Nobel Laureates Pauling, Feynman & Bethe, which alone would occasion reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986). Finally, the alleged “far-reaching implications” of the author’s conclusions for quantum mechanics, hydrogen-related chemistry, the astrophysics of dark matter and energy transduction and production technology (“Conclusions”) have failed to materialize. According to article metrics on the Science Direct website where the paper was reviewed, it has received only a single citation.1 Given the scientific community’s critical judgement of the inventor’s hydrino theory,2 this is hardly surprising.
Regarding Booker’s report, there are more glaring deficiencies. Booker has received payment from Blacklight Power, the parent company of the applicant of the invention, Brilliant Light Power ("Energy Play Draws Money and Ire", S.Jakab, Dow Jones Newswires, Jan.9, 2006; The Wall Street Journal; p.3; www.wsj.com/articles/SB113676233945541109). Therefore, Booker's statement that the experiment was “carried out correctly in front of an impartial validator” (i.e., himself, p.2) is not credible and his reports of the results of the experiments thus have little weight. Also, no clear nexus is established between the apparatus in the experiments and the claimed invention, and alleged output powers of the SunCell® (the so-called "thermal burst power") of, e.g., 637.5 times more power than the input in the case of the 1 mole% Bi₂O₃ added to the molten silver (Test 052316PA1; p.11), 200 times more for the case of the 1 mole% LiVO₃ (Test 052316PA2; p.12), and 26 times more for the case of the 0.5mole% LiVO₃ (Test 0524BDR; p.13) beggar belief and contradict conservation of energy. Finally, Booker's claim that the experiments are “reproducible” is not evidence that any such experiments, by independent researchers who are not paid and/or affiliated with the inventor, have actually been conducted. Regarding Coyle et al. (US Pat. No.9,994,450) and the suggestion that description in the patent literature of hydrino sub-ground state transitions provides experimental evidence of their existence, this is not persuasive since patents do not constitute peer-reviewed literature, particularly in a field as specialized and complex as quantum mechanics, nor does a description of hydrinos in a patent mean they are generally accepted by the scientific community. As noted, numerous citations demonstrate hydrino theory is incredible in view of contemporary knowledge to one of ordinary skill, and this would apply equally to Coyle. This reference as well as the others can be given little evidentiary weight because they are not independent and contradict the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, including cited Nobel Laureates Pauling, Feynman & Bethe. This alone occasions reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986). Finally, besides failing to generate any interest in the scientific community, the tremendous power generation reported by Booker (e.g., 200x or 637.5x more power) is not supported by any evidence of commercial success of the device commensurate with these extraordinary reports.
Regarding (4), to the extent the information submitted is provided as evidence for hydrinos and hydrino theory, it is noted that a majority of the papers, videos and “independent validations” are by the inventor, Randell Mills and/or his associates and therefore cannot be given evidentiary weight. The vague claims to “independent validations” by others lack any details and nexus with the claimed invention. More fundamentally, as noted on pp.5-12 of the 02 December 2025 Final Office Action, the current scientific literature judges hydrinos inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. As noted in the rejection, Pauling et al., Feynman et al., Bethe et al., Barth, Rathke, de Castro, Domby and Khelashvili et al., all demonstrate that the existence of hydrinos with fractional principle quantum values n representing states below the known ground state of hydrogen is theoretically inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry. This alone occasions reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986). Further, reference is made to the Office’s conclusions in three of Applicant’s earlier US applications directed to hydrino technology: SN 08/467,911, SN 12/153,613 & SN 12/213,476. In the first, the USPTO Board of Appeals & Interferences upheld rejections of claim 58 under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, directed to “[a] hydrino atom comprising: a hydrogen atom having an electron in a lower ground state energy level.” In particular, the Board found the utility of claims directed to a hydrino atom and a dihydrino molecule with two electrons in a lower than ground state energy level to be contrary to conventional scientific understanding of the hydrogen atom (i.e., implausible scientific principles). In the second, in the Appendix and Endnotes on pp.8-17 of the 28 February 2011 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of deficiencies in applicant's grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics ("GUT") forming the theoretical basis for his underlying hydrino technology and incorporated by reference into the current application (see ¶[0338], ¶[0442] & ¶[0988]). In the third, in Appendices (A)-(C) on pp.22-34 of the 24 August 2010 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of further deficiencies of the hydrino hypothesis.
A preponderance of the evidence both within the scientific and the legal community thus suggests it would be more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by the applicant for the claimed power generator that relies on them for operation. While generating light and heat, per se, have utility, generating light and heat from non-existent hydrinos as implicitly claimed does not have utility. The asserted utility is inconsistent with known scientific principles and it is “speculative at best” as to whether attributes of the invention (i.e., hydrinos) necessary to impart the asserted utility of power generation are actually present in the invention. In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, the invention recited in claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 is inoperative and lacks utility.
B. Rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant argues against the Office’s conclusion that the claimed power system inherently includes hydrinos and is inoperative because it relies on them for operation on the basis that the claims do not recite hydrinos and that no evidence is presented that the claimed elements cannot be made or used (Response, p.16).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The issue is not if the term “hydrino” appears verbatim in the claim, but rather if it is implicit. All the prior Office Actions and the preceding paragraphs have shown how the claimed “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma” implicitly includes hydrinos when read in light of the specification, in particular the abstract, ¶[0335], ¶[0351] and Eqs.(10)-(12) and (14-18). The utility of the invention is contingent on the existence of hydrinos, because “the energy gain due to forming hydrinos” (abstract) is what the system uses to “generat[e] at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy” as claimed. Further, on p.7 of his 14 May 2024 Response, Applicant states that the “[e]xothermic reactions (such as the ““hydrino reactions” which were experimentally observed…) that produce a plasma were observed using the claimed systems.” Thus, Applicant admits that the claims inherently include hydrino reactions.
Regarding Wands factor (2) and the amount of direction or guidance presented, the specific point was not with regard to the pressure-capable vessel, reactants, molten metal, etc., but rather the claimed “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma”. The specification ¶[0360]-¶[0393], in particular ¶[0368], for example, refers to this reaction wherein hydrino hydride compounds are prepared by “reacting atomic hydrogen with a catalyst having a net enthalpy of reaction of about m/2 27 eV where m is an integer greater than 1, preferably an integer less than 400, to produce an increased binding energy hydrogen atom having a binding energy of about 13.6 eV/(1/p)² where p is an integer, preferably an integer from 2 to 137.” But, such a description is circular and of little guidance, since it is not clear how the described net enthalpy reaction corresponding to the binding energies greater than ordinary hydrogen is achieved. In other words, the description presumes hydrinos. But, the existence of hydrinos is contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
With regards to the other Wands factors, Applicant states that “[t]he Examiner addresses the quantity of experimentation, amount of guidance, working examples, nature of the invention, state of the prior art, level of skill, predictability, and breadth of the claims through the premise that the claimed invention requires making hydrino.” This is correct insofar as, per MPEP 2164.08, all questions of enablement are evaluated against the claimed subject matter and the first analytical step requires that the examiner determine exactly what subject matter is encompassed by the claims. “USPTO personnel will use the Wands factors to ascertain whether the amount of experimentation required to enable the full scope of the claimed invention is reasonable.” The courts have repeatedly held that “the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’” or that any experimentation must be “reasonable”. See Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 959 F.3d 1091, 2020 USPQ2d 10550 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories, 720 F.3d 1380, 107 USPQ2d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 928 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2019); and Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 2019 USPQ2d 415844 (Fed. Cir. 2019). See also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the Examiner’s Wands factor analysis takes into account that hydrinos are implicit to the full scope of claim 1.
As explained in the rejection under 35 USC §101 and Response to Arguments above, the Examiner sets forth a reasoned argument why the claimed invention implicitly requires hydrinos in order to operate. Per MPEP 2107.02(IV), “[i]f a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been properly imposed, along with a corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie showing. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Further, with respect to evaluating the evidence, there is no predetermined amount or character that must be provided by an applicant to support an asserted utility. Rather, the character and amount of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed (Ex parte Ferguson, 117 USPQ 229, 231 (Bd. App. 1957)), and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
The claimed invention does not have utility because the invention is inoperative. It contravenes established scientific principles and beliefs. As noted above, the claimed “reaction of reactants” corresponds to a “reaction mixture” described by the specification ¶[0351] as “perform[ing] the catalysis of H to H states or hydrino states having energy levels given by Eqs.10&12.” Here and elsewhere the specification teaches hydrinos are the result of reactions of the reaction mixture. In the claims, even though hydrinos are not explicitly recited, they are implicit to the claimed “reaction of reactants” forming the plasma inside the vessel which produces light and/or thermal output for power production. But, the existence of “hydrinos” with energy ground states lower than ordinary hydrogen and fractional principal quantum numbers (per the specification ¶[0335], for example) is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. One of ordinary skill, then, could not make and use a device reliant upon hydrinos for operation when their existence contradicts established laws of science. Therefore, since the claim fails the utility prong of 35 USC 101, the claims lack enablement under 35 USC 112(a). Per MPEP 2164.07(I)(A), “[i]f a claim fails to meet the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is shown to be nonuseful or inoperative, then it necessarily fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” Also, the Federal Circuit has noted, “[o]bviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Conclusion
All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino - ScienceDirect
2 See, e.g., the articles of Phelps, Kunze, Rathke. Lawler and Dombey noted in the rejections.
Prosecution Insights