DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
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.
Per MPEP 2107.01 (II), an invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of the patent law. See, e.g., Newman v.Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581, 11 USPQ2d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989, 156 USPQ 673, 676 (CCPA 1968). See also In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“the PTO is entitled to reject an application for insufficient proof when a device by its nature occasions reasonable skepticism as to its operativeness under §101”).
Per MPEP 2107.01(IV), to properly reject a claimed invention under 35 USC 101, the Office must (A) make a prima facie showing that the claimed invention lacks utility, and (B) provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for factual assumptions relied upon in establishing the prima facie showing. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements:
(A) An explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible;
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and
(C) An evaluation of all relevant evidence of record, including utilities taught in the closest prior art.
In this case, with respect to elements (A) & (B), the invention is directed to a power generator that produces power by the conversion of H to “hydrinos” through reactions corresponding to Equations (15)-(18) (published specification ¶[0328]-¶[0374]).
Claim 1 recites “a reaction of reactants to form a plasma inside of the vessel” where the “reactants” include “water vapor and/or oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, and a molten metal, wherein the water and/or oxygen gas react with the molten metal to form a metal oxide….”
According to the specification, the invention is a power generator that provides at least one of electrical and thermal power (abstract). This power is generated through a reaction that releases energy from atomic hydrogen to form lower energy states wherein the electron shell is at a closer position relative to the nucleus (¶[0328]). The reaction forms allegedly new states of hydrogen having quantized energy levels below the “ground state” of ordinary hydrogen (¶[0335]; ¶[0361]-¶[0362]). “Hydrino” is applicant’s term for this alleged “lower-energy” state hydrogen atom (¶[0329]; ¶[0360]-¶[0362]).
More specifically, the specification ¶[0350]-¶[0359] discloses “catalysts” corresponding to the “reactants” in claim 1 which react in endothermic reactions defined by Equations (15)-(18) with atomic hydrogen (H) to form states of hydrogen having energy levels given by Equations (10) & (12), i.e., hydrinos.1 The specification ¶[0351] teaches “[t]he corresponding terms such as hydrino reactants, hydrino reaction mixture, catalyst mixture, reactants for hydrino formation, reactants that produce or form lower-energy state hydrogen or hydrinos are also used interchangeably when referring to the reaction mixture...” That is, the claimed “reactants” correspond to a “reaction mixture” described in ¶[0351] as “perform[ing] the catalysis of H to H states or hydrino states having energy levels given by Eqs.10&12.” A high reaction rate of H to hydrinos is referred to as “ignition” (¶[0405]). The specification uses the term “hydrino reactant” to refer generally to the claimed “reactants” and teaches the “hydrino reaction mixture” “may comprise at least one of oxygen, water vapor, and hydrogen” (¶[0893]). For example, with respect to one SunCell® embodiment, the specification ¶[0787] refers to the claimed “water vapor” reactant when describing “… supplied hydrino reactant such as H2O may be supplied through the EM pump tube....” Similarly, the specification ¶[0807] & ¶[0821] refer to both the claimed “water vapor” and “hydrogen gas” reactants when describing an MHD electric power system comprising “…a source of hydrino reactants such as a source of HOH catalyst and H…” and “[a] source of hydrino reactant such as at least one of H2O, H2, CO2, and CO may be permeated th[ro]ugh a permeable cell components….” With respect to the “molten metal” reactant, the specification teaches the molten metal “causes the reaction mixture to be highly conductive” (abstract) and forms a part of the “molten metal ignition system” (¶[0021]). While molten metal does not appear itself to constitute a “hydrino reactant” in the same way as the other reactants (i.e., through H-atom catalyst reactions per Equations (15)-(18)), the molten metal is nevertheless understood as a reactant in the sense that it may be a part of the “hydrino reaction mixture” as described in ¶[0007] with respect to one embodiment where “the hydrino reaction mixture may comprise the molten metal, the metal oxide, and hydrogen.”
The abstract further teaches the power generator includes “(i) at least one reaction cell for the catalysis of atomic hydrogen to form hydrinos identifiable by unique analytical and spectroscopic signatures” where “(ii) a reaction mixture” comprising the claimed “reactants” such as water, oxygen or hydrogen gas is “ignited” by an ignition system, thereby “ignit[ing] a plasma to initiate rapid kinetics of the hydrino reaction and an energy gain due to forming hydrinos….” In one example, the specification ¶[0405]-¶[0406] teaches hydrinos form when the “reactants” such as H2O are “ignited” by an “ignition system” to release energy in the form of a plasma. Thus, power generation in the claimed invention occurs when “reactants” are ignited by an “ignition system” to release energy in the form of “light and thermal output” from a plasma.
The claimed “reaction of reactants to form a plasma inside of the vessel” refers to endothermic reactions (i.e., “hydrino reactions”) defined by Equations (15)-(18) wherein states of hydrogen having energy levels given by Equations (10) & (12), i.e., “hydrinos”, are formed (¶[0351]). The claimed power system thus implicitly presumes and necessarily requires hydrinos to produce a plasma and generate electrical and/or thermal power.
According to standard quantum mechanics (QM), the binding energy En for hydrogen is given by equations (10)-(11) where the parameter “n” represents the principal quantum number “n” (¶[0335]). Note that per Eq.(11) standard QM stipulates n must be an integer greater than or equal to one.
In contrast, in applicant’s theory of hydrinos, n is a fractional number, per Eq.(12), which results in higher values for En, corresponding to lower energy-states (¶[0329]). For example, in ¶[0362], the specification teaches “a hydrino hydride ion (H-) having a binding energy according to Eq.(19) that is greater than the binding of ordinary hydride ion (about 0.75 eV) for p=2 up to 23, and less for p=24 (H-) is provided. For p=2 to p=24 of Eq. (19), the hydride ion binding energies are respectively 3, 6.6, 11.2, 16.7, 22.8, 29.3, 36.1, 42.8, 49.4, 55.5, 61.0, 65.6, 69.2, 71.6, 72.4, 71.6, 68.8, 64.0, 56.8, 47.1, 34.7, 19.3, and 0.69 eV.” In a physical sense, the hydrinos allegedly reside in electron shells at a closer position to the nucleus (¶[0328]) than the distance of a Bohr radius in the ground state given by classical QM. The specification ¶[0328] teaches “catalyst systems…release energy from atomic hydrogen to form lower energy states…” (i.e., hydrinos).
But, notwithstanding the implicit contradiction of an energy state below a “ground state”, which is by definition the lowest energy state a system can have, the existence of such hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, and therefore the invention is inoperative and lacks utility.
In quantum mechanics (QM), the Schrödinger equation, the auxiliary restrictions upon the wave function Ψ, and the interpretation of the wave function are fundamental postulates that provide the fundamental description of atomic spectra and periodicities found in the table of chemical elements2, 3. In particular, the hydrogen atom is a two-body problem consisting of an electron and a proton, and so it can be solved exactly. The Schrödinger equation was the first equation to successfully produce the experimental result for the observed energy levels of hydrogen from a basic equation of motion for the electron4. In the Schrödinger equation, the lowest value the principal quantum number “n” may take is the integer 1. This is referred to as the “ground state” of hydrogen and corresponds to a Bohr radius for the electron of 0.528 x 10-10 m. In the ground state, with n = 1, the electron has an energy Eo of -13.6 eV, or a Rydberg of energy (ER), equivalent to the ionization energy of hydrogen. The integer values for n result from the bound-state solutions to the spherically symmetric solution to the wave equation for hydrogen (Eq.19.7), so that instead of an infinite series, a finite polynomial results.5 Thus, the Schrödinger equation does not predict a hydrogen binding energy greater than 13.6 eV, in absolute terms. As summarized by Feynman, “[t]he Schrödinger equation has been one of the great triumphs of physics. By providing the key to the underlying machinery of atomic structure it has given an explanation for atomic spectra, for chemistry, and for the nature of matter.”
In Chap.5 of “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Pauling et al. present the Schrödinger equation for the radial wavefunction of the hydrogen atom Eq.(18-29) and explain mathematically how boundary conditions result in the allowed values for the total quantum number n to be an integer greater than or equal to one (pp.121-125). See also Bethe et al., “Quantum Mechanics of One and two-Electron Atoms” (Cornell University, 1977, pp.3-25.
In a later paper, with specific reference to applicant’s hydrino theory, the physicist Aaron Barth (“Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001) examines the applicant’s claims of hydrinos as set forth in his thousand-page book on the topic (presumably, his grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (“GUT”) incorporated by reference into the current application; see ¶[0338], ¶[0442] & ¶[0988]). Barth outlines the traditional quantum theory of the hydrogen atom, as modeled by Bohr and Schrödinger, and contrasts this with Mills’ theory. Barth notes Mills’ disagreement with the fundamental premises of quantum theory and how Mills instead replaces the Schrödinger equation with a wave equation having solutions representing “traveling waves”---something entirely different from solutions to the Schrödinger equation---without terms describing the electromagnetic force and without “bound-state” solutions representing an electron physically attached to an atom.6 Barth also notes that Mills’ wave equation doesn’t contain Planck’s constant that sets the overall scale of the quantization energy levels of the atom, and so Mills’ model can’t correctly predict the energy levels of hydrogen7. Barth notes Mills’ strange conclusion that the electron is confined to an infinitely thin spherical shell around the atom’s nucleus called the “orbitsphere” and that this is inconsistent with experimental data. Barth says that Mills “artificially graft[s] the Bohr model onto his theory in a way that is mathematically nonsensical” and that “[n]o matter what radius is chosen, the fact remains that this orbitsphere model is inconsistent with the wave equation” and he notes Mills’ hydrino model “isn’t a logical consequence of the wave equation, or of any other basic equation of motion for the electron… [and] doesn’t even rise to the level of a legitimate physical theory that one might potentially test by experiment, since it’s not mathematically coherent or self-consistent.”8 After debunking alleged astrophysical evidence for hydrinos in emission lines from flare stars and far-infra-red data from the Cosmic Background Explorer spacecraft, Barth concludes:
PNG
media_image1.png
276
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
115
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
718
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Barth is not the only physicist to express skepticism of hydrinos. A.Rathke (“A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127) notes severe mathematical inconsistencies in the model of the hydrogen atom upon which the theory (and, hence, the invention) is based and the incompatibility of hydrino states with standard QM. Rathke notes applicant’s “grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics” (CQM) predicting the existence of hydrinos proposes a classical wave equation for the electron’s charge-density function that is not Lorentz invariant for any other phase velocity than the speed of light, and so is at best the non-relativistic limit of a broader theory.9 Rathke explains in detail how the equation for non-zero orbital angular momentum (6) in applicant’s model is not solution of the wave equation (1) and thus fails to describe electron motion in a hydrogen atom with non-minimal angular momentum. In contrast, Rathke notes that electron states with non-zero angular momentum are well-described in standard quantum mechanics.10 Rathke also explains in detail how applicant’s model fails to provide a solution to the radial part of the wave equation for any orbital radius, and that there is no basis for deriving the existence of hydrinos from applicant’s wave equation.11 Rathke’s analysis “demonstrates that the theory is mathematically inconsistent in several points: the quantization condition of CQM allows only a solution for the ground state of the hydrogen atom; the radial solutions for the charge density function of the electron, as well as the angular solutions with non-zero angular momentum, differ from those given in the literature on CQM…[and] there is no way to cure the flaws of the theory by adding physical assumptions. CQM is obviously inconsistent, and in particular does not contain solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos.”
Rathke also considers whether standard QM allows for the existence of hydrinos and concludes that while solutions of the Schrödinger equation for n < 1 exist, they are not square integrable, and that “[t]his does not only violate one of the axioms of quantum mechanics, but in practical terms prohibits that these solutions can in any way describe the probability density of a particle. Thus solutions with n < 1 are meaningless in standard quantum theory and the existence of hydrinos as a solution of the Schrödinger equation for a classical Coulomb potential is excluded.” 12 Rathke also notes that the applicant’s experimental results would be more properly understood “if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.”
Similarly, A. de Castro (“Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics”, 2007) notes that square integrability excludes singular wave functions in the Schrödinger equation for the non-relativistic case and provides further analysis of the relativistic case as modeled by the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. De Castro finds that even for these, the orthogonality criterion shows that anomalous bound-state solutions do not exist, because it “imposes additional constraints in such a way that the would-be relativistic square-integrable solutions for hydrino states, related to the thin lines in Fig.1 and Fig.2, are not acceptable, and only radial solutions behaving at the origin as r -1/2+ε, with ε > 0 for the Klein-Gordon case, and r -1+e for the Dirac case, are physically acceptable solutions” (abstract; p.6).
Domby in “The hydrino and other unlikely states” (Aug 2006) discusses hydrino solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation for the Coulomb potential in three dimensions and the Dirac equation for the Coulomb potential in two dimensions. He shows these solutions are unphysical in spite of having normalisable wave functions because: 1) they lack non-relativistic counterparts even for arbitrarily small coupling; 2) the states persist even when coupling is turned off; and 3) the strength of the binding increases as the coupling strength α decreases, so the maximum binding occurs for α = 0 when the potential has disappeared completely. Further, Domby demonstrates that if the point charge of the nucleus is replaced by a charge extending over an arbitrarily small by finite radius R, then the anomalous functions become unacceptable because for small enough R they cease to satisfy the appropriate wave equation. He concludes that “[o]utside of science fiction this is sufficient reason to disregard them.”13
A. Khelashvili et al. in "Dirac reduced radial equations and the problem of additional solutions" International Journal of Modern Physics E, Vol 26,1750043 (2017) discusses so-called “additional solutions” in the problem of hydrogen-like atoms (also known as “hydrino” energy states) and concludes that two- and three-dimension solutions “…do not satisfy…fundamental physical principles and their existence is not possible” (p.15).
Thus, Pauling et al., Feynman et al., Bethe et al., Barth, Rathke, de Castro, Domby and Khelashvili et al., are at least eight independent, expert sources demonstrating implicitly or explicitly that the existence of hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry.
Reference is also made to the Office’s findings 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 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.
Regarding evaluation of the closest prior art for utility as set forth in element (C) of the procedure outlined in MPEP 2107.01(IV), it is noted the closest prior art of record is US Pat.10,753,275 (submitted in the IDS filed 10 November 2021) which teaches a mechanical power system (in contrast to the electric and thermal power generator of the instant application) comprising “a) at least one source of nascent H2O; b) at least one source of atomic hydrogen; c) at least one of a conductor and a conductive matrix…and at last two electrodes that confine and connected to the high current source configured to conduct a high current through the fuel” (claim 1). But, this patent is to the same inventor as the current application. Similarly, all other publications postulating or otherwise describing utility of hydrinos are to the inventor himself, or his associates. None of this information, including Exhibits (A)-(G) submitted as rebuttal evidence of utility, can be considered independent, peer-reviewed literature since it all originates from the inventor and/or his associates. Further, the enormous output powers reported by Dr.Booker in Exhibit (A) contradict the law of conservation of energy.
In summary, hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the current scientific literature. This alone would occasion reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention. In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986). Further, no independent, peer-reviewed information exists that supports the existence of hydrinos, and none of the experimental data report any direct observations of them.
The large output powers observed by Dr.Booker suggest the invention contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Per MPEP 2107.01(III)(B), “[o]ne situation where an assertion of utility would not be considered credible is where a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion to be "incredible in view of contemporary knowledge" and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter what contemporary knowledge might otherwise suggest. The asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. 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). A preponderance of the evidence 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. Therefore, the invention recited in claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 is inoperative and lacks utility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Per MPEP 2107.01 (IV), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph incorporates by reference the factual basis and conclusions set forth in the 35 USC 101 utility rejection. Because that rejection determined the invention as claimed does not have utility, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed, and as such, the claim is defective under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. As explained, the invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility since it is based upon the creation and use of “hydrinos” with energy ground states lower than ordinary hydrogen and fractional principal quantum numbers that are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. Though hydrinos are not explicitly recited, the claimed power system nevertheless relies upon the existence of hydrinos in order to cause the “reaction of the reactants” forming the plasma which outputs electrical and/or thermal power since the hydrinos allegedly produced by the reaction of the reactants, due to their higher binding energy, are responsible for the net energy gain.
Also, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to “[a] power system that generates at least on of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising:…reactants, the reactants comprising water vapor and/or oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, and a molten metal….; at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power…to supply current through the intersecting the streams of the molten metal to cause a reaction of the reactants to form a plasma inside of the vessel…and at least one power converter or output system of at least one of light and thermal output from the plasma to electrical power and/or thermal power.” Though not explicitly claimed, the power system relies upon the existence of hydrinos in order to “generat[e] at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy”. But, as explained, hydrinos do not exist, nor can they be produced, and therefore the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to make them and use the invention as claimed to produce electrical and/or thermal power.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), the factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation, as set forth by in re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include:
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary,
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification,
(3) The presence or absence of working examples,
(4) The nature of the invention
(5) The state of the prior art,
(6) The relative skill of those in the art,
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
(8) The breadth of the claims.
Each of these factors will be addressed as to their relevance to the lack of enablement of the present claims.
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary
Claim 1 recites “[a] power system that generates at least on of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising:…reactants, the reactants comprising water vapor and/or oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, and a molten metal, wherein the water vapor and/or oxygen gas react with the molten metal to form a metal oxide…; at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power…to supply current through the intersecting the streams of the molten metal to cause a reaction of the reactants to form a plasma inside of the vessel…and at least one power converter or output system of at least one of light and thermal output from the plasma to electrical power and/or thermal power.” According to the specification these “reactants” are “hydrino reaction reactants” which facilitate conversion of hydrogen into novel hydrogen compositions of matter referred to as “hydrinos” in reactions corresponding to Equations (15)-(18) (¶[0008]; ¶[0328]-¶[0374]). A broad range of “reactants” is encompassed by “water vapor and/or oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, and a molten metal…” For instance, with respect to “water vapor” reactant, the
specification ¶[0406] teaches “reactants comprising a source of H2O can comprise at least one of bulk H2O, a state other than bulk H2O, a compound or compounds that undergo at least one of react to form H2O and release bound H2O. Additionally, the bound H2O can comprise a compound that interacts with H2O wherein the H2O is in a state of at least one of absorbed H2O, bound H2O, physisorbed H2O, and waters of hydration…and have H2O as a reaction product.” Given the large number of “reactants” disclosed explicitly or suggested, and the large number of potential compounds for the “sources” of water and hydrogen, the quantity of experimentation necessary is correspondingly very large. Further, and more fundamentally, hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the scientific literature noted above. This implies an extraordinary quantity of experimentation would be necessary to produce extraordinary results falsifying well-established principles of physics and chemistry.
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification
The specification ¶[0360]-¶[0393], in particular ¶[0368], refers generally to a method for preparing hydrino hydride compounds 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.
(3) The presence or absence of working examples
While the specification allegedly gives examples of conversion of hydrogen to “hydrinos” through reactions corresponding to Equations (15)-(18) (¶[0328]-¶[0374]), since hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry it is unclear that any such examples actually work as described. Further, no working examples of hydrino-based devices have been documented by independent, peer-reviewed, third-party research. In US application Ser.No.12/213,476 to applicant directed to similar hydrino technology, the Office determined “there is no evidence which indicates applicant has succeeded in arriving at an operative system, or inventing a working method, that is capable of catalytic…reactions involving hydrogen, which may form novel hydrogen species of reduced atomic radius…” and noted that “[n]one of the licensing companies has ever been able to come up with a viable product” and “[t]he total lack of replication and confirmation by other independent researchers despite the worldwide publications over 19 years (as far back as 1991) is a tacit evidence for, either the invention does not work as claimed, or it is not useful, or both.”14 Further, as noted by the EPO (Written Opinion, Section 5), applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years (see, e.g., US 6,024,935, published 15 February 2000) but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented. For these reasons, working examples of hydrino-based generators are absent.
(4) The nature of the invention
The commonly-accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry hold that hydrogen cannot exist below the “ground state” and have fractional value for the principal quantum number n. In contrast, applicant’s invention is based on novel composition of hydrogen called the “hydrino” which exists below the known “ground state” and has fractional values for the principal quantum number n. See the rejection above under 35 USC §101. Thus, the fundamental nature of the present invention is that it consists of a form of hydrogen which cannot exist under the accepted laws of physics. In order to establish enablement, applicant bears the burden of proving that the accepted scientific laws are wrong or incomplete, which has not been done in the present specification and rebuttal evidence (see below).
(5) The state of the prior art
US Pat. 9,994,450 discloses a hydrino theory similar to that of the present application, except that no catalysts are used within the apparatus and process (see c.6:8-27). US Pat.10,753,275 (submitted in the IDS filed 10 November 2021) is arguable the closest prior art since it teaches a mechanical power system (in contrast to the electric and thermal power generator of the instant application) comprising “a) at least one source of nascent H2O; b) at least one source of atomic hydrogen; c) at least one of a conductor and a conductive matrix…and at last two electrodes that confine and connected to the high current source configured to conduct a high current through the fuel” (claim 1). Other patents and publications describing apparatus based on hydrino theory in the 10 November 2021 IDS are to same inventor as the current application. The prior art in favor of hydrino theory is limited to the inventor and/or his associates.
(6) The relative skill of those in the art
The relative skill of those in the field of quantum mechanics is extremely high. Note, for example, the highly abstract nature and mathematics in the introductory portions of the texts to Pauling et al., Bethe et al., and Feynman noted above. Further, the level of the mathematical demonstrations by Rathke, De Castro, etc. showing hydrinos do not exist are evidence that analysis of hydrinos involves very high skill. Even though ordinarily the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art 15, given that the invention is directed to states of hydrogen without theoretical or empirical basis and that the cited expert opinion is universally opposed to their existence in nature, it is not seen how even the most expert of those skilled in the art could produce hydrinos as claimed.
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art
Since hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry in that they exhibit fractional principal quantum numbers representing energy levels below the known ground state of hydrogen, it is difficult to envision that one skilled in the art could extrapolate them since they are not predicted by theory and they have they been observed by independent researchers in the past. As noted in (6), the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. Further, as noted above in (3), applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented, and there is no evidence any of the licensees for related technology has succeeded in building a reactor based on such hydrino reactions.
(8) The breadth of the claims
Given the large number of “reactants” disclosed explicitly or suggested, and the large number of potential compounds encompassing “water vapor and/or oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, and a molten metal”, claim 1 is broad in scope. Also, given that the other parts of claim 1 of a “vessel”, “reactant supply system”, “ignition system”, “two molten metal reservoirs each comprising an electromagnetic pump” and “at least one power converter or output system” are not structurally related to each another in any detail, but merely presented as a list, the claims are fairly broad in scope.
Summary
Per the preceding Wands factor analysis, because the quantity of experimentation necessary is very large, the specification provides little guidance for making hydrinos, there are no working examples of hydrinos or machines which use them in peer-reviewed scientific literature by independent third party researchers, the nature of the invention is fundamentally at odds with the accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry, the state of the prior art is limited, the unpredictable nature of the invention precludes extrapolation thereof by even the most expert, and the breadth of the claims is broad, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to make them or use the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 August 2025 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’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant repeats arguments including: 1) Experimental evidence of operability has been provided; 2) The Examiner has not analyzed this evidence; and 3) The claimed invention does not violate scientific principles. Response, pp.6-8.
A complete response to (1)-(3) was given previously in the 25 February 2025 Office Action, pp.23-30, and will not be repeated here.
In short, regarding (1), as noted on pp.29-30 of the previous Office Action, the experimental evidence and exhibits on record all originate from the inventor and/or his associates, not independent researchers. Therefore, little weight can be given to this evidence. Regarding (2), to the contrary, Applicant’s evidence including the filed IDS and Exhibits have been considered. See pp.26-28 of the previous Office Action. Regarding (3), as noted in the rejection and pp.28-30 of the previous Office Action, hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the current scientific literature. 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.
In addition to the lack of independent, peer-reviewed information supporting the existence of hydrinos, none of the experimental data report any direct observations of them. The large output powers observed by Dr.Booker 16 suggest the invention contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Per MPEP 2107.01(III)(B), “[o]ne situation where an assertion of utility would not be considered credible is where a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion to be "incredible in view of contemporary knowledge" and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter what contemporary knowledge might otherwise suggest. The asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. 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). A preponderance of the evidence 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. Therefore, the invention recited in claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 30 & 32-36 is inoperative and lacks utility.
The Examiner also directs Applicant’s attention again to US S.N.08/467,911 where USPTO Board of Appeals & Interferences upheld rejections under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, of claims directed to hydrinos.17 In particular, they found the utility of claims directed to a hydrino atom and a dihydrino molecule with two electrons in a lower then ground state energy level to be contrary to conventional scientific understanding of the hydrogen atom (i.e., implausible scientific principles).
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 repeats the argument that the claims “do not require hydrinos” and alleges the Examiner has not provided any rationale to challenge the presumption of enablement but instead has treated the issue improperly by relying on an unclaimed theory (Response, pp.8-9).
But, Applicant’s argument is conclusory. Applicant does not elaborate or provide any basis for his conclusion that the claims “do not require hydrinos”. As explained in the rejection and preceding discussion, the claimed “reaction of the reactants to form a plasma” utilizing the claimed reactants implicitly includes hydrinos. Further, as noted by Applicant on p.7 of his 14 May 2024 Response, the “[e]xothermic reactions (such as the ““hydrino reactions” which were experimentally observed…) that produce a plasma were observed using the claimed systems”.
Per the specification ¶[0351], 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). These correspond to “hydrino atoms” (¶[0329]). Thus, to the extent the claimed systems utilize a plasma produced by exothermic reactions involving “hydrino reactions” observed in experiments, these experiments lend support to the conclusion that hydrinos are implicit to the claimed plasma.
Applicant also fails to address the Wand’s factor analysis that establishes the rationale for the rejection under 112(a). 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 See ¶[0335]-¶[0336].
2 L.Pauling et al. “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1985), p.52.
3 R.Feynman et al., “The Feynman Lectures on Physics---Quantum Mechanics” Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading Mass. (1965), p.19-1 & 19-5.
4 Ibid., p.19-1 & 19-5.
5 Ibid., p.2-6, p.19-5.
6 A.Barth, “Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001, p.42.
7 Ibid., p.43.
8 Ibid., p.43.
9 Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127, Eq.1. p.3.
10 Ibid., p.4.
11 Ibid., pp.5-6.
12 Ibid., p.6.
13 N.Dombey, “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A 360, p.62-65 (2006).
14 Non-Final Office Action, Ser.No.12/213,476, dated 06 February 2012, pp.7-8, 13 & 16. Cited in 11 May 2021 PTO-892.
15 In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
16 R.Booker, “Report on the Power Output of a Solid Pellet Water Bath Calorimeter, Light Power Output of a Solid Pellet, and SunCell Output Power at Brilliant Light Power”, Exhibit A, 10 November 2021 IDS.
17 Patent Board Decision, SN 08/467,911, pp.5-7, 31 August 2010. Cited in 11 May 2021 PTO-892.