DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 12/10/2025. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, 21, and 23-26 are pending in the application with claims 2 and 13-16 withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 17-18, 21, and 23-26 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Analysis – 35 USC § 101
As set forth in MPEP 2107, examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to determine if the application has asserted for the claimed invention any specific and substantial utility that is credible. If no assertion of a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the claimed invention is made by Applicant, and the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility, the claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility.
To satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public and define a “real world” use of the invention as disclosed in its current form. Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use are not substantial utilities. A prima facie showing of no credible, specific, and substantial utility must establish that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider specific and substantial any utility or would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the utility is not both specific and substantial nor well-established or that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
The Present Invention and the Asserted Utility
Applicant’s claims are directed towards “[a] method of operating a reactor” wherein “repeated collisions produce an interaction with the second reactant that produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the first reactant and the second reactant” (claim 1).
Nuclear fusion is defined as a process in which two or more atomic nuclei combine to form a different atomic nucleus and involves a reaction between the two or more atomic nuclei1. Thus, Applicant claims to have a method for producing a fusion reaction: two or more atomic nuclei (“a first reactant” and “a second reactant”) combine (“repeated collisions produce an interaction”) to form a different atomic nucleus (“produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the first reactant and the second reactant”). It is further clear from the disclosure that the claimed “interaction” is a nuclear fusion reaction (see [0024], [0032]).
As disclosed in the specification, the invention allegedly operates by employing “electron screening ... to reduce the Coulombic barrier to fusion of two nuclei” ([0024]), thus inducing “a reaction between two or more nuclei in a manner that produces more energy than is input into the reactor” ([0067]). The invention could purportedly “generate a sustained fusion reaction making it suitable as a viable energy source” ([0067]). For example, the specification further discloses (emphasis added):
“When accounting for the energy input to the reactor, the resulting reaction can breakeven and result in Q > 1.... In certain embodiments, the ratio should be at least about 2” ([0070]; see also [0104])
“reactors may be classified into groups by the power output they provide.... Small scale reactors are typically capable of generating between about 1-10kW of power ... [and] are used for personal applications.... [M]edium scale reactors which typically deliver between about 10kW -50MW of power ... may be used for larger applications such as server farms, and large vehicles such as trains, and submarines. Large scale reactors are reactors that are designed to output between about 50MW -10GW of power and may be used for large operations such as powering portions of a power grid and/or industrial power plants” ([0124])
“Any one or more of these energy forms [produced by the reactors] may be converted to different energy forms usable for particular applications” ([0259]; see also [0077], [0171], [0258]-[0263] which discloses energy conversion hardware)
“Fusion reactors as described herein have abundant applications that may resolve many societal issues such as dependence on fossil fuels. In some cases, the use of fusion reactors may make feasible and/or practical energy intensive applications that were not feasible or practical with conventional power generation methods” ([0284]; see also [0284]-[0288] which discloses further applications of the invention).
Applicant’s asserted utility is therefore practical energy production from cold fusion reactions (see discussion below).
Thermonuclear vs. Cold Fusion
As is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, and as admitted by Applicant ([0012], [0015], [0084]), overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures (such as temperatures in the range of 107-108 K)2. Conventional fusion systems are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion systems which produce (or attempt to produce) these conditions in order to overcome Coulombic repulsion and generate fusion reactions3. There are a number of ways to do this. For example, inertial confinement fusion (ICF) uses short, powerful laser pulses to heat and compress fusion fuel to an extremely hot and dense state having sufficient energy to initiate fusion reactions4, while magnetic confinement fusion uses magnetic fields to confine plasma and achieve similar conditions5.
By contrast, cold fusion systems attempt to achieve fusion at temperatures lower than those known to provide sufficient energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier. These fusion reactions are also known as “cold fusion”, “warm fusion”, “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), or “low-temperature fusion” reactions.
Applicant’s invention fits squarely into the field of cold fusion. Applicant discloses the present invention can induce fusion reactions “in the temperature range of about 1000K to 3000K” ([0073]; see also [0085]), which is significantly lower than the temperatures required for nuclear fusion as discussed above. However, to date, there exists no independent, peer-reviewed, successful evaluation of cold fusion devices and methods. Rather, the mainstream scientific community continues to doubt the operability of cold fusion systems and the presumption that fusion may occur in a low-temperature environment is wholly unsupported by modern nuclear and plasma physics. For example, a multi-year, multi-disciplinary study6 examined cold fusion mechanisms and “found no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot be otherwise explained prosaically” (p. 45, col. 2). See also In re Sichert, 556 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977); In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In re Swartz”).
Applicant admits that “conventional thinking holds that high temperatures and a strongly-ionized plasma, absent of the presence of a significant presence of neutrals are required, it was further believed that inexpensive physical containment of the reaction was impossible” ([0014]) and “such methods [for reducing the Columbic barrier or repulsion force] have largely been disregarded as infeasible with the methods described above” ([0016]). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced a successful mechanism for achieving nuclear fusion at temperatures significantly lower than the 107-108 K known to be required for these reactions ([0067], [0073], [0085], claim 1).
Not only does Applicant explicitly describe the purported fusion reactions as occurring at these low temperatures, but Applicant also does not disclose any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the required 107-108 K temperatures. Further, the present invention bears no similarity to the thermonuclear fusion systems known to achieve fusion. For example, there is no disclosure of the use of powerful lasers to confine and compress fusion material in a manner similar to ICF systems discussed above and further below. Said differently, Applicant’s invention is incapable of producing or sustaining fusion reactions as Applicant’s invention is incapable of creating or maintaining the extreme conditions necessary to initiate such reactions.
Net Energy Fusion
Net energy fusion refers to fusion reactions from which more energy is produced than is used or lost in creating the reactions. This requires a ratio (i.e., “energy gain”) of the generated fusion energy to the energy input into the reactor that is greater than or equal to 1 (see also [0070]). Producing these reactions would allow for fusion as a viable source of practical energy and has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”, driving multi-decade long endeavors by the international fusion community to reach this goal7.
Despite these efforts, there currently exist no nuclear fusion systems, thermonuclear or cold, capable of producing such useful energy gain for practical applications. In December 2022, the National Ignition Facility’s ICF system, which is the largest operational thermonuclear fusion system in the U.S., reportedly produced 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target and the results of the experiment have been hailed as “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” and a “fusion breakthrough”. However, the laser system itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. In other words, the system operated at an overall net energy deficit. Thus, although an achievement in fusion, the experiment was far from a demonstration of practical energy production8,9,10,11.
While the most successful fusion experiment was unable to achieve a net energy gain via thermonuclear fusion reactions, Applicant alleges the present invention could be useful as a viable source of energy via cold fusion reactions as discussed above. In fact, Applicant directly compares the mechanism of the present invention to that of ICF systems (such as the NIF system): “The rate of fusion energy per unit volume for such systems exceeds that of tokamak and inertial confinement fusion systems by at least about eight orders of magnitude. Thus, a system as disclosed herein can achieve a defined rate of energy production in about one-hundred-millionth of the volume of a tokamak or inertial confinement system” (emphasis added) ([0083]). Applicant’s invention would purportedly be capable of achieving an energy gain of 2 (i.e., the fusion reactions produce double the energy required to generate the reactions) ([0070]). Thus, while the NIF experiment produced significantly less energy than was input (322 MJ input vs. 3.14 MJ produced), the present invention alleges to produce more energy (e.g., double) than is input.
Discussion
According to MPEP 2107, there is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an Applicant to support an asserted utility, therapeutic or otherwise. 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 (Bd. App. 1957)) and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. Evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true.
Based on the above analysis, Examiner concludes that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider the utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention to be a specific and substantial utility that is credible. As has been established above, the present invention is directed towards a mechanism for producing fusion reactions that contradicts the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Further, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the alleged practical energy production by the present invention. Examiner further notes, the courts have previously found a “cold fusion” process for producing energy to be as lacking utility in In re Swartz. See MPEP 2107.01(II). Consequently, the evidence that must be provided to establish a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the present invention must be sufficiently strong to overcome the weight of the mountain of experimental evidence that underpins the conclusion of the scientific community. The present disclosure would therefore not lead a skilled artisan to conclude fusion reactions at low temperatures, let alone net energy fusion, occurs.
Analysis – Specification and 35 USC § 112(a)
As set forth in MPEP 2163, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Additionally, as set forth in MPEP 2164, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
As discussed above, there is no evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving fusion reactions or net energy fusion. There exist no systems to date which have successfully produced fusion reactions at low temperatures or have successfully produced a useful energy gain from fusion reactions and the specification fails to describe distinguishing and identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Further, to determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Based on the evidence regarding the aforementioned Wands factors, the specification at the time the application was filed would not have taught one skilled in the art how to “reduce the coulombic barrier to fusion of two nuclei”, “induce a reaction between two or more nuclei that produces more energy than is input to the reactor”, or “captur[e] and convert[] energy produced by a fusion reaction within the reactor” ([0024], [0067], [0077], claim 1):
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards a method for producing “an interaction with the second reactant that produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the first reactant and the second reactant” by generating an electric field and an electrical current (claim 1). The scope of the claims includes producing these fusion reactions at temperatures such as 1,000-3,000 K ([0073], [0085]) which are significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, as discussed above. The details for producing such a reaction at any temperature is not well-known and a skilled artisan would therefore be unable to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.08.
(B) The nature of the invention and state of the prior art: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy ([0067], [0073], [0124], [0284]-[0288]). The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it. As discussed above, fusion reactions require temperatures (107-108 K) many orders of magnitude greater than those disclosed by Applicant (1,000-3,000 K). Further, there are currently no known fusion reactors for producing net energy at extremely high temperatures, let alone at the temperatures disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2164.05(a).
(C) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art cannot be ascertained because the art encompassing cold fusion research lies within the realm of fringe science and subsequently does not possess a recognizable standard level of associated skill. See MPEP 2164.05(b).
(D) The level of predictability in the art: Cold fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data. Furthermore, there is no predictability for energy-producing fusion reactors, as none yet exist, as discussed above, and the specification does not provide an explanation as to how one would achieve energy production with the claimed fusion mechanism. See MPEP 2164.03.
(E) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: 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 of the art. As discussed above, the art of cold fusion reactions is unpredictable and there are currently no known fusion reactors capable of producing a net energy output. As such, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. However, Applicant's underlying theory is speculative at best and Applicant fails to provide a detailed explanation as to how to achieve energy production with the disclosed fusion method. See MPEP 2164.03.
(F) The existence of working examples: Examples are defined as and explained by theoretical possibilities and are not reliably-reproducible working examples. See MPEP 2164.02.
(G) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: In view of the above factors, the quantity of experimentation needed is infinite. Viable cold fusion reactors or viable fusion reactors for producing net energy gain have not yet been demonstrated and the disclosure does not provide sufficient guidance that would enable a skilled artisan to make and use the invention. See MPEP 2164.06.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Based on the above analysis, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention and fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 17-18, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility. Based on the above analysis, the asserted utility of the present invention is not credible. It is more likely than not that a skilled artisan would not consider credible the utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 17-18, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Based on the above analysis, 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. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention. Given the overly broad claims for producing a fusion reaction at any temperature (including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion), the fact that there currently exist no viable cold fusion reactors or fusion reactors producing a net energy output, the unpredictability of the art, and the lack of guidance provided by the inventor as to how to achieve the claimed results, Examiner has determined that the disclosure does not contain sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims so as to enable a skilled artisan to make and used the claimed invention without undue or unreasonable experimentation.
Claims 1, 4-10, 12, 17-18, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Based on the above analysis, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether Applicant had actual or constructive possession of the claimed method at the time of filing. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the method of the present invention is capable of initiating a fusion reaction at any temperature, including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, or that the invention is capable of producing a net energy output. There exist no fusion reactors to date that are capable of such reactions and the specification fails to describe distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Note on Prior Art
Applicant should note that while Examiner has shown in the below rejections that the claimed invention is obvious over the prior art, the prior art does not enable the claimed inventions for the reasons set forth above. “Even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches”. Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, “a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103”. Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991). MPEP 2121.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-10, 21, and 23-26, as best understood by Examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2011/0188623 (“Wong”) in view of WO Publication No. 2006/096772 (“Rostoker”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Wong (see FIG. 1) discloses a method of operating a reactor comprising:
generating an electric field and an electrical current in a confinement region (9) of the reactor between at least two of a plurality of electrodes (6, 8)12 azimuthally separated from each other by portions of said confinement region ([0010]-[0011]) by applying, with a control system, an electric potential between the at least two electrodes ([0010]), wherein:
the reactor includes the at least two electrodes being concentrically arranged with the confinement region (see also claim 1) and one of the at least two electrodes forming a substantially cylindrical confining wall (6) that at least partially encloses the confinement region ([0010], claims 1-2), a second reactant (“rotating boron”), and an inlet to the confinement region for permitting introduction of a fluid to the confinement region, the fluid containing a first reactant (hydrogen) ([0011], [0025], claim 1);
the confinement region and the other (8) of the at least two electrodes define respective longitudinal axes that are coincident with each other throughout the confinement region to dispose the other one of the at least two electrodes both along an entirety of a radial center of the confinement region and in a direction of the respective longitudinal axes (claim 1; Wong’s electrode (8) extends along an entire radial center of confinement region (9) and past the confinement region (9));
the electrical current generates, from the first reactant, an ionized plasma of ions and neutrals (claim 1);
the control system includes one or both of a voltage and a current source and is configured to apply the electric potential between the at least two of the plurality of electrodes ([0010]);
the electric field, in conjunction with a magnetic field ([0010]), induces and/or maintains azimuthal rotation of the ions in the confinement region around the longitudinal axis of the confinement region ([0028]), the azimuthal rotation of the ions configured to: (i) impart azimuthal rotation to neutrals of the first reaction ([0024], [0025], [0028]), and (ii) promote repeated collisions between one or both of the ions and the neutrals with the second reactant ([0025], [0028], claims 4, 8); and during operation of the reactor:
an electron-rich region proximate to the second reactant has an excess of electrons over positively charged particles ([0025]; as disclosed in [0032], [0086]-[0090] of the instant specification, boron is an electron-emitter), wherein the reactor further comprises one or more electron emitters (7), each comprising a boron strip, embedded in the confining wall such that, during operation, the one or more electron emitters generate electrons in the confinement region ([0025]; Wong discloses the reactor comprises boron which the instant specification discloses is an electron emitter13); and
repeated collisions produce an interaction with the second reactant that produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the first reactant and the second reactant ([0003], [0011]).
Although Wong is silent as to the ratio of electrons to positively charged particles in its electron-rich region, the skilled artisan would expect that the ratio is greater than one. Further, Rostoker (see FIGS. 1, 15-17, 21B) teaches a method for operating a reactor comprising a confining wall (305) enclosing a confinement region (310), electrodes (1112), a reactant (p-B11), and an electron-rich region (see separated electrons forming the electron-rich region within area 350) within the confinement region, such that, during operation, fusion reactions occur (p. 37, ll. 4-6, 19-20). Rostoker establishes that confining the electrons, and thus increasing the electron density and forming the electron-rich region, is desirable as this avoids the anomalous transport of energy which reduces the required plasma volume (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to increase the number and proportion of electrons in Wong’s electron-rich region, as taught by Rostoker, for the predictable advantage of avoiding anomalous transport of energy, as suggested by Rostoker (p. 5, ll. 18-21). The skilled artisan would have been aware that providing as high an electron density as possible would afford the benefit of reducing or eliminating anomalous transport effects, as taught by Rostoker, and would have therefore found the claimed ratio of electrons to positively charged particles between 106:1 and 108:1 to be suggested by Rostoker.
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Although Wong is silent as to the electric field strength of the electron-rich region, Wong clearly establishes that increasing the acceleration levels of the ions and neutrals by the electric and magnetic fields is desirable (claim 1). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found the claimed electric field strength of at least 106 V/m to be suggested by Wong. The skilled artisan, based on Wong’s disclosure, would have been aware that providing a high electric field strength would provide the predictable advantage of further accelerating the ions and neutrals to levels sufficient to allegedly cause a fusion reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Although Wong-Rostoker does not explicitly teach the neutrals in the electron-rich region have an energy of, on average, between 0.1eV and 2eV, Wong establishes that the energy of the neutrals would affect the amount of energy produced ([0028]) and Rostoker establishes that interactions between neutrals and plasma fuel present an energy loss channel (p. 12, ll. 24-26). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found the claimed energy range of the neutrals to be suggested by Wong in view of Rostoker. The skilled artisan, based on Wong and Rostoker’s teachings, would have been aware that the energy of the neutrals must be high enough to allegedly allow for a fusion reaction, while being as low as possible to reduce energy loss.
Regarding claim 7, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Rostoker teaches electrons in the electron-rich region have a density of 1014/cm3 to 1016/cm3, which falls within the claimed range of 1010/cm3 to 1023/cm3 (p. 38, ll. 3-4). A POSA would have been motivated to combine Wong and Rostoker as discussed above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Wong is silent as to the distance the electron-rich region extends into the confinement region. However, the present specification discloses an outer electrode/confining wall which annularly surrounds an inner electrode and further includes at least one electron-emitter, each comprising a boron strip (FIG. 1, [0076], [0086], [0115]). This is the same structure which is disclosed by Wong as discussed above with regards to claim 1. The present specification further discloses this arrangement produces a “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode ([0086]-[0091]). Thus, if the disclosed electrodes of the present invention are capable of producing a “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode, then the skilled artisan would reasonably expect Wong’s electrodes, having the same structure, would also be capable of producing the “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode. Wong further discloses that increasing the amount of neutrals is desirable in order to increase the number of reactants available for collision ([0007]-[0008], [0010], [0025]-[0026], [0029]), but that the fusion break-even condition is inversely proportional to the volume of the rotating region where the neutrals and ions are being driven ([0027]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found the claimed distance of 50 nanometers to 50 micrometers to be suggested by Wong. The skilled artisan, based on Wong’s disclosure, would have been aware that increasing the distance of the electron-rich region would reduce the volume of the rotation region in the confinement chamber, while decreasing the thickness of the electron-rich region would allow for a greater number of particles available for fusion.
Further, if necessary, although Rostoker is also silent as to the distance the electron-rich region extends into the confinement region, one would assume from the term “layer” and Figures 15-16 of Rostoker that Rostoker’s electron-rich region does not greatly extend into the confinement region. Rostoker also establishes that it is beneficial to confine the electrons (p. 5, ll. 18-21), but also beneficial to increase the number and density of electrons to avoid anomalous transport of energy (p. 5, ll. 18-21). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found the claimed distance of 50 nanometers to 50 micrometers to be suggested by Rostoker. The skilled artisan, based on Rostoker’s teachings, would have been aware that the presence of an electron-rich region would afford the predictable advantage of preventing the anomalous transport of energy, and further that the electrons should be confined.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the neutrals in the confinement region proximate the second reactant have a concentration of 1018/cm3, which falls within the claimed range about 1016/cm3 to about 1018/cm3 ([0029]).
Regarding claim 21, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the second reactant comprises boron-11 ([0025]).
Regarding claims 23-24, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the interaction is an aneutronic fusion reaction (Title, [0003], [0011]).
Regarding claim 25, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 23. As discussed above with regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 23, Wong discloses the interaction allegedly produced by the method is a fusion reaction (Title, [0003], [0011]). The modified Wong teaches the claimed invention and would therefore be capable of producing the alleged fusion reactions at a rate that is 1017 to about 1022 fusion reactions per second per cubic centimeter as recited in the claim (see Wong, [0037]).
Regarding claim 26, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the neutrals comprise neutral hydrogen ([0025], [0026], claim 4).
Claims 12 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Rostoker further in view of EP Publication No. 0645777 (“Chikuma”).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Wong in view of Rostoker teaches the method of claim 11, but does not appear to teach controlling electron generation in the confinement region. Chikuma (see FIG. 1) teaches a cold fusion apparatus (10) and further teaches controlling the generation of electrons by controlling the emissions of a laser (16) configured to emit a beam of light onto an electron emitter (4:6-14). A POSA would have been motivated to utilize the laser as taught by Chikuma to control the generation of electrons in the modified Wong’s method because Chikuma teaches this provides the advantage of raising the screening effect and promoting nuclear fusion reactions (4:6-14).
Claim 18, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma further in view of US Publication No. 2004/0173462 (“Letts”).
Regarding claim 18, Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma teaches the method of claim 17, but does not appear to teach controlling the emissions of the laser based on the monitored temperature of the electron emitter. Letts (see FIG. 1) teaches stimulating an electrode (8) using a laser beam (10) and further teaches controlling the emissions of the laser based on a monitored temperature of the electrode ([0009], [0036], [0038], [0043]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to control the emissions of the laser based on the temperature of the electron emitter in the modified Wong’s method in view of the teachings of Letts because Letts teaches this provides the advantage of a highly focused laser beam capable of being directed to various parts of the electron emitter ([0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 12/10/2025 appear to be substantially the same as the arguments provided in the prior responses (dated 10/13/2023, 11/262024, and 06/05/2025) (see Remarks, pp. 7-23 which quote the prior responses). Examiner maintains the arguments are not persuasive, as discussed previously and further below.
35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant argues the present invention is not directed towards cold fusion and is instead directed towards “submicron fusion, i.e., fusion activities that are conducted individually or collectively on a very small scale ... for the utilization of energy produced from these activities” (Remarks, pp. 8-11, 14-15, 18-19). Applicant attempts to distinguish the present invention (and “submicron fusion”) from cold fusion, stating that “Applicant’s embodiments break the prior art paradigms by, among other things, introducing a profusion of low-energy, free electrons to the system ..., thus lowering the Coulomb repulsion ... and thereby increas[ing] the probability of fusion. Accordingly, Applicant’s embodiments are submitted to be distinct from cold fusion” (Remarks, p. 11).
However, the field encompassed by “cold fusion” is not limited to experiments “based on the assumption that the Coulomb barrier is a constant that must be overcome” as asserted by Applicant (Remarks, p. 9). Nor does the size of a fusion system (e.g., “very small scale”, “nano-scale or smaller”, “pico to femto scales”; Remarks, pp. 8-9; see also instant specification, [0073], [0124]-[0125]) preclude the system from being a cold fusion system (i.e., a “submicron fusion” system can also be a “cold fusion” system). Rather, the determination as to whether a fusion system is a cold fusion (also referred to as “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), “low-temperature nuclear reactions”, or “warm fusion”) system is based on the temperatures (i.e., energies) and pressures at which the fusion reactions occur (or are alleged to occur).
As noted in the prior Office actions (see Final Rejection dated 06/11/2025, para. 8; see also Non-Final Rejection dated 12/05/2024, para. 9), fusion reactions are known to require temperatures of 107-108 K in order to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Fusion reactions which occur at these extreme conditions are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion reactions. The only fusion systems to date which have successfully produced fusion reactions (such as the ITER and NIF systems mentioned by Applicant; Remarks, pp. 8-9; see also instant specification, [0006], [0008]) are thermonuclear fusion systems. By contrast, fusion reactions which are hypothesized/alleged to occur at conditions other than these extreme conditions are cold fusion reactions. In other words, “cold fusion” describes any nuclear reaction which purportedly occurs at temperatures (i.e., energies) much lower than those known to be required.
Applicant discloses the reactions of the present invention are “characterized as ‘warm fusion,’ e.g., where fusion occurs in the temperature range of about 1000K to 3000K” ([0073], [0085]). These disclosed temperatures are clearly many orders of magnitude below the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required for fusion reactions. Applicant therefore alleges a nuclear reaction (fusion) which can occur at temperatures (1,000-3,000 K) much lower than those required for the reaction to occur (107-108 K), i.e., cold fusion.
Not only is the alleged fusion reaction described as occurring at significantly lower temperatures ([0073], [0085]), but Applicant also does not provide any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required to initiate fusion reactions. Thus, Applicant’s invention is further incapable of creating the conditions required for fusion and is therefore incapable of producing or sustaining fusion reactions, thermonuclear or cold.
Applicant further argues “[t]here can be no question that the invention as disclosed operates as indicated since there is provided a detailed explanation of the physical mechanisms underlying the disclosed apparatus for performing the claimed method” and “any assertion of total incapacity needed to support a finding of non-utility cannot be substantiated” (Remarks, pp. 14-18). However, Applicant asserts and identifies the utility of the claimed invention is for initiating and sustaining fusion reactions in order to generate a net energy gain. For example, Applicant discloses: “Various embodiments disclosed herein pertain to reactors and methods of operating those reactors under conditions that induce a reaction between two or more nuclei in a manner that produces more energy than is input to the reactor. This disclosure refers to such reactions as nuclear fusion reactions” ([0067]; see also [0003]). This appears to be the only utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention and, further, the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility.
Applicant has cited numerous documents in support of the asserted utility. Examiner provides a detailed analysis of each document below:
“An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1” (2025) (“Wong”)
Applicant alleges that “in view of at least publication of [Wong] in the journal Plasma..., acceptance, via at least the Plasma publication, is demonstrated for Applicant’s embodiments as not regarding cold fusion” (emphasis in original) (Remarks, p. 25). However, mere publication of Applicant’s article in the journal Plasma does not determine whether Applicant’s invention is directed toward cold fusion. Rather, as discussed in the prior Office actions and above, the determination as to whether a fusion system is a cold fusion system is based on the temperatures (i.e., energies) and pressures at which the fusion reactions occur (or are alleged to occur). The term “cold fusion” describes any nuclear reaction which purportedly occurs at temperature (i.e., energies) much lower than those known to be required. In this case, Applicant alleges a nuclear fusion reaction which can occur at temperatures (e.g., 1,000-3,000 K) much lower than those required for the reaction to occur (107-108 K) ([0073], [0085]). Thus, Applicant’s invention is directed towards cold fusion. Further, the article was authored by Applicant themselves. As previously discussed, reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. An article by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible.
“Steady state rotational dynamics of a weakly ionised hydrogen plasma under cross-field configuration” (2025) (“Muir”)
Applicant further cites Muir in support of the operability of the present invention (Remarks, pp. 8, 23-24). However, Applicant has acknowledged this article as “unpublished commentary” (Remarks, p. 8) and Examiner can find no evidence that this “commentary” has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Further, the “commentary” was also authored by Applicant themselves. As previously discussed, reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. Thus, an unpublished “commentary” by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible.
“Dynamically assisted tunneling in the impulse regime” (2021) (“Kohlsfürst”)
Applicant alleges Kohlsfürst “demonstrate[s] operability for and ability to practice Applicant’s embodiments” (Remarks, pp. 11-12). However, Kohlsfürst merely examines “enhancement of tunneling” which “could be relevant for nuclear fusion” (emphasis added) (Abstract) in terms of theoretical analysis and relies on approximations, assumptions, and simplifications (pp. 2, 6, 9). Nowhere does Kohlsfürst conclude or experimentally confirm that the theorized tunneling results in fusion, let alone fusion which can produce a net energy gain, and Kohlsfürst does not, as asserted by Applicant, provide support that Applicant’s claimed fusion mechanisms have been substantiated. Further, there is insignificant overlap between Kohlsfürst and the claimed invention. For example, while Kohlsfürst briefly discusses proton-boron fusion (pp. 6-7), the paper does not describe the claimed electrode arrangement, azimuthal rotation of ions or neutrals, or an electron-rich region having an excess of electrons over positively charged particles of at least 106/cm3. Kohlsfürst also notes that, by their estimation, nuclear fusion would require a field strength of 1016 V/m (Table I). By comparison, the present invention utilizes an electric field strength of 106 to 108 V/m ([0099], claim 5).
“Probing the core of the strong nuclear reaction” (2020) (“Schmidt”)
Applicant further cites Schmidt in support of the operability of the present invention (Remarks, pp. 12-13). However, Schmidt is directed towards “the usefulness of using [high-energy electron scattering] measurements to study the nuclear interaction at short distances” (Abstract) and presents data to “support [] the use of point-like nucleons with effective interactions for modelling atomic nuclei and dense astrophysical systems” (p. 543). Nowhere does Schmidt provide support that Applicant’s claimed fusion mechanisms have been substantiated nor does Schmidt correspond to the currently recited invention. For example, there is nothing in the paper directed towards a fusion reactor, electrodes, or inducing azimuthal rotation of ions or neutrals using an electric field and a magnetic field.
“Data Report on CR-39 Tracks” (“CR-39 report”)
Applicant alleges the undated CR-39 report provides supporting experimental results of Applicant’s fusion process (Remarks, p. 13). However, Examiner can find no evidence that this report has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Further, the report was authored by Applicant themselves. As noted in the prior Office actions, reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. Thus, an unpublished report by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible. See also Ex parte Alfred Y. Wong, decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Application No. 16/757,941, pp. 19-20.
“Observation of Proton-Boron Fusion Products from Rotating Plasma Device” (“Alpha Ring”)
Applicant alleges the undated Alpha Ring article “present[s] additional objective experimental evidence corroborating the operability and utility of the claimed invention” (Remarks, p. 13). However, Examiner again can find no evidence that this article has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Further, the article was also authored by Applicant themselves. As previously discussed, reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. Thus, an unpublished article by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible.
“Experimental Status of LENR” (2021) (“Nagel”)
Applicant further cites Nagel as “support of the utility and enablement of the submicron fusion activities as are disclosed and claimed in the present application” (Remarks, pp. 13-14). However, a presentation from a workshop for low-energy nuclear reactions does not suggest a scientific consensus or provide objective evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving nuclear fusion. While Examiner does not deny that there are a handful of cold fusion advocates who have elected to ignore the evidence of inoperability and believe that cold fusion is real, one cannot objectively claim that a presentation produced by such a cold fusion advocate is “peer-reviewed” or representative of accepted mainstream scientific conclusions. There is also insignificant overlap between the cited paper and the claimed invention. For example, Nagel appears to be directed towards cold fusion mechanisms of the electrochemical or electrolysis type (e.g., hydrogen loading of palladium) (p. 6) which Applicant admits have been unsuccessful ([0019]-[0020]). Further, there is nothing in Nagel regarding Applicant’s mechanism for inducing azimuthal rotation of ions or neutrals using an electric field and a magnetic field.
“Briefing on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Research” (2016) (“ASD(R&E)”)
Applicant further cites ASD(R&E) as “support of the utility and enablement of the submicron fusion activities as are disclosed and claimed in the present application” (Remarks, pp. 13-14). However, ASD(R&E) merely provides an overview of nuclear fusion and the state of cold fusion experiments. The briefing lacks any significant overlap with the claimed invention. Further, ASD(R&E) concluded that cold fusion reactions have not been substantiated: “LENR research has been challenged by a lack of reproducibility of results, and many of the studies have not provided the necessary scientific and theoretical foundations” (p. 4) and “[a]fter almost 30 years, the same issues are still present with cold fusion or LENR claims” (p. 25). Thus, rather than providing support for Applicant’s asserted utility, ASD(R&E) establishes that said asserted utility runs counter to conventional knowledge that is accepted by the mainstream scientific community.
Applicant’s Affidavit for USAN 12/850,633 (“the ’633 application”) (“the Affidavit”)
Applicant states that “Applicant’s claim 1 ... is amended to further correspond to Applicant’s claims discussed in the Affidavit corresponding to Application No. 12/850,633 (Remarks, pp. 17-18). However, the evidence presented in the Affidavit is insufficient to overcome the rejection as the evidence is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. See MPEP 716. The Affidavit is directed towards a different application than the instant invention and there is no nexus between the merits of the claimed invention and the invention described in the Affidavit. The apparatus described in the Affidavit requires a superconducting magnet, a cylindrical chamber, a discharge rod, an electrical power supply configured to provide DC and pulsed operation, a cooling system, a supply of hydrogen gas, and a boron target. None of these features are claimed in the instant invention. Therefore, the Affidavit fails to establish a nexus between the ’633 invention and the instant invention.
After evaluation of each document (as discussed in detail in the prior Office actions and above) and the totality of the record, Examiner concludes that Applicant’s provided evidence, considered as a whole, does not suggest a scientific consensus or provide objective evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving nuclear fusion at temperatures magnitudes lower than those known to be required for fusion reactions or providing a net energy output. Applicant has not established a probative relation between the submitted evidence and the originally disclosed properties of the claimed invention and Examiner does not find that Applicant has explicitly identified for the claimed invention a specific and substantial utility that is credible or provided evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the identified specific and substantial utility was well-established at the time of filing. Examiner therefore maintains that it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a legitimate basis to doubt the credibility of the asserted utility.
Examiner notes similar utility rejections for another application by the same inventor, USAN 16/757,941 (“the ’941 application”), were affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. See Ex parte Alfred Y. Wong, Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Application No. 16/757,941. The claim language of the fusion device of the ’941 application shares similarities with the reactor in the method of the present application. For example, claim 1 of the ’941 application and claim 1 of the present application both recite a reactor comprising: a confining wall at least partially enclosing a confinement region; a plurality of electrodes; a control system including a voltage and/or current source and configured to apply an electric potential between the plurality of electrodes, wherein the electric field, in conjunction with a magnetic field, induces or maintains rotation of ions/charged particles in the confinement region; and a reactant; wherein during operation of the reactor, repeated collisions between the ions/charged particles and neutrals produce an interaction with the reactant that produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the reactants.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant argues “neither element 8 in Wong nor element 5 in its parent application provides the configuration as is recited such that each element 5, 7 is believed deficient with respect to being ‘along an entirety of a radial center of a confinement region’” (Remarks, pp. 20-21). However, Wong (see FIG. 1, annotated below) clearly shows the electrode (8) disposed along an entirety of a radial center of the confinement region (9).
PNG
media_image1.png
603
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wong, FIG. 1 (annotated)
Applicant further argues “Rostoker nowhere mentions any ‘electron-rich region’” (Remarks, pp. 21-22). However, Examiner notes, reference numeral 350 of Rostoker was cited to point to the separated electrons forming the electron-rich region within area 350. As shown in Figures 15-16, Rostoker teaches an electron rich region (denoted by “ELECTRONS” and “-”) in area 350. In other words, Rostoker teaches a region (e.g., at the bottoms of the arrangements in FIGS. 15-16) which has an excess of electrons (“ELECTRONS”, “-”) over positively charged particles (denoted by “+”). Additionally, Wong appears to disclose this feature as discussed in the prior action and above.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM-5:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, “Critical Ignition Temperature for Fusion,” Georgia State
University, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_fusion
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_confinement_fusion
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_confinement_fusion
6 Berlinguette, Curtis P., et al. “Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion.” Nature 570.7759 (2019): 45-51.
7 https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition
8 https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st
9 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7
10 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a/full/
11 https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal
12 Note corresponding elements 5, 6 in parent application no. 12/783,550 (US Publication No. 2010/0294666) (Fig. 1, [0014], [0017]), which is incorporated by reference in the Wong disclosure
13 See [0076] of the instant specification