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 .
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 07/13/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13-16, 18, 21, and 23-26 are pending in the application with claims 2 and 13-16 withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-10, 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) via thermonuclear fusion reactions, the present invention alleges to produce more energy (e.g., double) than is input via cold fusion reactions.
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 and as admitted by Applicant (see [0004]-[0023], [0069], [0078]), 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 produce cold fusion reactions capable of net energy output ([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 (see [0004]-[0023]) and a skilled artisan would therefore be unable to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2164.08.
(B)-(C) 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).
(D) 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).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Cold fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data (see [0016]-[0023]). Furthermore, there is no predictability for energy-producing fusion reactors, as none yet exist, as discussed above (see also [0004]-[0023]), 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.
(F) 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.
(G) 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.
(H) 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, 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, 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, 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”) and EP Publication No. 0645777 (“Chikuma”).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Wong (previously cited) (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]), allegedly 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, allegedly, 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 (previously cited) (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 allegedly 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.
The modified Wong does not appear to teach controlling electron generation in the confinement region. Chikuma (previously cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a method of operating a fusion apparatus (10) and teaches controlling the generation of electrons by controlling the emissions of a laser (16) configured to emit a beam of light through a confinement region and onto an electrode (11) (4:6-14, 7:34-49, 9:21-27). 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 allegedly raising the screening effect and promoting nuclear fusion reactions (4:6-14).
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma 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 and Chikuma teaches the method of claim 1. Although the modified Wong 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 and Chikuma. 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 and Chikuma 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, Rostoker, and Chikuma as discussed above with regards to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma 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 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 and Chikuma 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 and Chikuma teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the second reactant comprises boron-11 ([0025]).
Regarding claims 23-24, Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the interaction is allegedly an aneutronic fusion reaction (Title, [0003], [0011]).
Regarding claim 25, Wong in view of Rostoker and Chikuma 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 and Chikuma teaches the method of claim 1. Wong discloses the neutrals comprise neutral hydrogen ([0025], [0026], claim 4).
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 (previously cited) (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 argues “there is no proper basis to combine Chikuma with Wong and Rostoker” (Remarks, pp. 7-10). In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Wong discloses a method of operating a cold fusion reactor comprising a confinement region (9) and electrodes (6, 8) provided with solid boron, which is an electron emitter ([0010], [0025], claims 1-2), and allegedly inducing and/or maintaining azimuthal rotation of ions in the confinement region ([0024]-[0025], [0028]); Rostoker establishes that increasing the electron density and thereby forming an electron-rich region within a confinement region of a fusion reactor provides the advantages of avoiding anomalous transport of energy which reduces the required plasma volume (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21); Chikuma further establishes that electrons can be generated by emitting laser light onto an electrode (4:6-14, 7:34-49). Accordingly, the combination of Wong with Rostoker and Chikuma teaches the features of claim 1.
Applicant argues “[a] person of ordinary skill combining these references therefore would have had no reasonable expectation that Chikuma’s occlusion-specific laser technique would perform any corresponding function when placed in Wong’s gas-phase reactor” (emphasis omitted) (Remarks, p. 9). However, as discussed above, both Wong and Chikuma are directed towards methods of operating a fusion apparatus comprising electrodes (Wong, 6, 8; Chikuma, 11) and a fusion fuel material (Wong, hydrogen; Chikuma, deuterium) (Wong, FIG. 1, [0010]-[0011], [0025], claims 1-2; Chikuma, FIG. 1, Abstract, 3:40-52). Chikuma teaches irradiating laser light onto the electrode to cause emission of electrons due to the photoelectric effect (4:6-14, 7:34-49, 9:21-27). Chikuma further teaches this provides the alleged benefits of increasing the density of electrons around the fusion fuel material and promoting fusion reactions by raising the screening effect (3:40-52, 9:1-9). This alleged benefit of promoting fusion reactions by increasing the density of electrons is similarly taught by Rostoker (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21). Thus, the skilled artisan would reasonably expect to achieve the alleged benefits of increasing electron density and promoting fusion reactions by irradiating Wong’s electrode and boron materials in view of Wong, Rostoker, and Chikuma. The advantages of allegedly increasing electron density and promoting fusion reactions are sufficient motivation for a skilled artisan to apply this approach to the modified Wong’s method.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the office action “does not explain how [Chikuma and Wong] would be combined” (emphasis omitted) (Remarks, pp. 9-10), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant further argues the recited parameters of claims 4-10 are not result-effective variables (Remarks, pp. 10-11). Claim 4 is directed towards a ratio of electrons to positive ions in the electron-rich region. As discussed in the prior Office action and above, Rostoker establishes that increasing the number and proportion of electrons avoids anomalous transport of energy and reduces the required plasma volume, i.e., the ratio of electrons to positive ions achieves the recognized results of affecting anomalous transport of energy and required plasma volume (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21). Thus, the ratio of electrons to positive ions is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable as evidenced by at least Rostoker. Claim 5 is directed towards an electric field strength of the electron-rich region. As discussed in the prior Office action and above, Wong establishes that the electric field accelerates ions and neutrons and the ions and neutrons must be accelerated to levels sufficient to allegedly cause fusion, i.e., the electric field strength achieves the recognized results of affecting ion and neutral acceleration and, thereby, allegedly fusion capabilities ([0010], [0028], [0039], claim 1). Thus, the electric field strength is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable as evidenced by at least Wong. Claim 6 is directed towards an energy of the neutrals in the electron-rich region. As discussed in the prior Office action and above, Wong establishes that energy of the neutrals affects the amount of energy produced by the alleged fusion reactions and Rostoker establishes that interactions between neutrals and plasma fuel present an energy loss channel, i.e., the energy of the neutrals achieves the recognized results of affecting the amount of alleged fusion energy produced and the amount of energy loss from neutral-fuel interactions (Wong, [0028]; Rostoker, 12:24-26). Thus, the energy of the neutrals is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable, as evidenced by at least Wong and Rostoker. Claim 7 is directed towards an electron density in the electron-rich region. Rostoker explicitly teaches an electron density of 1014/cm3 to 1016/cm3, which falls within the claimed range of 1010/cm3 to 1023/cm3 (p. 38, ll. 3-4). Nevertheless, as discussed above, Rostoker establishes that increasing the number of electrons avoids anomalous transport of energy and reduces the required plasma volume, i.e., the electron density achieves the recognized results of affecting anomalous transport of energy and required plasma volume (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21). Thus, the electron density is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable, as evidenced by at least Rostoker. Claim 8 is directed towards a dimension of the electron-rich region. The present specification discloses the arrangement of an outer electrode/confining wall which annularly surrounds an inner electrode and further includes at least one electron-emitter, each comprising a boron strip produces the “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode (FIG. 1, [0076], [0086]-[0091], [0115]). Wong discloses this same arrangement. Thus, if the invention as recited in claim 8 is capable of producing a “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode, such as an electron-rich region extending a distance of between 50 nanometers and 50 micrometers from the second reactant, then the skilled artisan would reasonably expect Wong’s electrodes, having the same structure and arrangement, would also be capable of producing the “very thin” electron-rich region at the outer electrode. Nevertheless, as discussed in the prior Office action and above, Wong establishes that increasing the amount of neutrals increases the number of reactants available for collision and that the fusion break-even conditions is inversely proportional to the volume of the rotating region where the neutrals are driven ([0007]-[0008], [0010], [0025]-[0027], [0029]). The skilled artisan, in view of 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. Rostoker also establishes that it is beneficial to confine the electrons and also beneficial to increase the number and density of electrons to avoid anomalous transport of energy and reduce the required plasma volume, i.e., the dimension of the electron-rich region achieves the recognized results of affecting electron confinement, anomalous transport of energy, and required plasma volume (p. 2, ll. 28-32; p. 5, ll. 18-21). Thus, the dimension of the electron-rich region, is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable, as evidenced by at least Wong and Rostoker. Claims 9 and 10 are directed towards a concentration of the neutrals. Wong explicitly discloses a concentration of neutrals of 1018/cm3, which falls within the claimed range about 1016/cm3 to about 1018/cm3 ([0029]). Nevertheless, Wong establishes that high concentration of neutrals helps sustain a significant fusion yield, i.e., the concentration of neutrals achieves the recognized result of affecting fusion yield ([0029]). Thus, the concentration of neutrals is recognized in the prior art to be a result-effective variable, as evidenced by at least Wong.
Applicant appears to assert that the claimed invention is not directed towards cold fusion (Remarks, pp. 11-12). However, in doing so, Applicant attempts to distinguish the present invention from thermonuclear fusion, stating that “the invention reduces the Coulomb barrier itself” and “[a] prima facie case that evaluates a screening-based mechanism against a thermal, Lawson-type benchmark measures the invention against a physical basis it does not employ” (Remarks, p. 12). 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 Non-Final rejection dated 01/12/2026, para. 9; see also 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 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 explicitly 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]) and explicitly acknowledges “[t]he claimed invention ... does not rely on bulk thermal energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier” (Remarks, p. 12). 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 argues “[t]he present record is materially different from the bare assertions at issue in Swartz” (Remarks, p. 13). However, as established above, Applicant’s invention fits squarely into the field of cold fusion. The courts have previously found a “cold fusion” process for producing energy (such as Applicant’s invention) to be as lacking utility in In re Swartz. See MPEP 2107.01(II).
Applicant argues the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in US Application No. 16/757,941 (by the same inventor and Applicant) “addressed a different application and a different claim set, and is not dispositive of the patentability of the presently amended claims” as “present claim 1 ... recites controlling electron generation by controlling the emission of a laser directed through the confinement region and onto the electron emitter or the confining wall, a limitation that was not before the Board in that appeal” (Remarks, p. 13). Examiner has merely noted the similarities between the claim language of the two applications in the prior Response to Arguments.
Applicant argues “[t]he claims are not the open-ended claims the Office Action describes” (Remarks, p. 14). However, as noted in the prior Office actions and above, the scope of the claims is extremely broad and includes producing the alleged 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. As previously discussed and as acknowledged by Applicant (see below), no prior art fusion system has been able to achieve the alleged fusion reactions. Therefore, if Applicant’s claimed invention is capable of such a feat, essential mechanisms for inducing cold fusion reactions capable of net energy gain have been omitted from the claims. The details for producing such reactions at any temperature are not well-known and a skilled artisan would therefore be unable to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues “Wong and Rostoker themselves describe reactors of the same general field, confirming that the underlying apparatus and its operation were within the knowledge of the art” (Remarks, p. 14). However, as noted in the prior Office action and above, while Examiner has shown in the above 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. As previously established, there are currently no known fusion reactors for successfully producing cold fusion reactions, let alone cold fusion reactions producing net energy.
Applicant argues “[t]he design and operation of plasma reactors of the claimed type is an established engineering discipline, and the specification provides the structural and operational guidance a person of ordinary skill would apply” (Remarks, p. 14). However, as established above, Applicant’s invention is directed towards practical energy production from cold fusion reactions. While thermonuclear fusion systems (such as the National Ignition Facility) have been able to successfully produce fusion reactions, no thermonuclear fusion system has been capable of producing net energy and no cold fusion system has been capable of successfully producing fusion reactions. Applicant’s own disclosure establishes the nature of the invention, the state of the art, and the lack of success and predictability in the art (emphasis added):
“Since the 1950s, the science and technology communities have been striving to achieve controlled and economically viable fusion. Fusion is an appealing energy source for many reasons, but after billions of dollars and decades of research, to most, the idea of a sustainable fusion source for clean energy has become a pipe dream. The challenge has been to find a way to sustain a fusion reaction in a way that is economical, safe, reliable, and environmentally sound. This challenge has proved to be extraordinarily difficult. The commonly held belief in the art is that another 25-50 years of research remain before fusion is a viable option for power generation—‘As the old joke has it, fusion is the power of the future—and always will be’” ([0004])
“At the time of this filing, the most successful ICF program is the National Ignition Facility (NIF).... [T]he NIF experiments were only able to reach about 1/3 of the energy levels needed for ignition. Regarding a sustainable reaction, the longest reported ICF fusion reaction was on the order of 150 picoseconds. Even if ICF efforts achieve ignition conditions, there are still many obstacles to making it a viable energy source” ([0006])
“Due to market realities, and inherent limitations of the tokamak design for fusion power, many analysts doubt that fusion reactors such as ITER will become commercially viable” ([0008])
“Rotating plasma devices that do not employ highly ionized plasmas have been considered for fusion research, but the neutrals have always been seen as a problem for reaching fusion conditions. Due to limiting effects ... one researcher in the field considered that while ‘not quite impossible [it is] still unlikely that rotating plasmas alone would lead to the realization of a self-sustained fusion reactor’” ([0010])
“All credible prior approaches have all faced confinement and engineering issues.... [T]he field has looked to the Lawson criterion as the benchmark for controlled fusion reactions—a benchmark, it is believed, that no one has yet achieved when accounting for all energy inputs. The art’s pursuit of the Lawson criterion, or substantially similar paradigms, has led to fusion devices and systems that are large, complex, difficult to manage, expensive, and, as yet, economically unviable” ([0011])
“In practice, this industry-standard paradigm suggests that temperatures in excess of 150,000,000 degrees Centigrade are required to achieve positive energy balance using a D-T fusion reaction. For proton-boron 11 fusion, the Lawson criterion suggests that the required temperature must be yet substantially higher” ([0012])
“Because the conventional thinking holds that high temperatures and a strongly-ionized plasma, absent of the presence of a significant neutrals, are required, it was further believed that inexpensive physical containment of the reaction was impossible” ([0014])
“In fact, at least one source acknowledges the believed impossibility of containing a fusion reaction with a physical structure: ‘The simplest and most obvious method with which to provide confinement of a plasma is by a direct-contact with material walls, but it is impossible for two fundamental reasons: the wall would cool the plasma and most wall materials would melt. We recall that the fusion plasma here requires a temperature of ~108 K while metals generally melt at a temperature below 5000 K’.... The need for extremely high temperatures is premised on the belief that only highly energized ions with charge can fuse, and that the coulombic repulsion force limits the fusion events. The present teaching in the field relies on this basic assumption for the vast majority of all research and projects” ([0015])
“In rare instances, researchers have considered methods for reducing the Coulombic barrier or repulsion force.... Such methods have largely been disregarded as infeasible” ([0016])
“[E]fforts to make a muon-catalyzed fusion source have not been successful.... Thus, these two factors ... limit muon-catalyzed fusion to a laboratory curiosity. To create useful muon-catalyzed fusion, reactors would need a cheaper, more efficient muon source and/or a way for each muon to catalyze many more fusion reactions. To date, none have been found or even theorized” ([0018])
“Martin Fleischmann and Stanly Pons submitted a paper ... reporting that they had discovered a method of reducing the Coulombic barrier by a method that is now commonly referred to as ‘cold fusion’.... While the Fleischmann-Pons findings initially received significant press, the reception by the scientific community was largely critical.... These experimental mistakes, along with many failed attempts to replicate the Fleischmann-Pons experiment by well-known laboratories, lead most in the scientific community to conclude that any positive experimental results should not be attributed to ‘fusion’.... [T]he DOE concluded that results thus far did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy would result from the phenomena attributed to ‘cold fusion’” ([0019]-[0020])
“While Indech and others have realized the potential electron screening to lower Coulombic barrier for fusion reactors, it is doubtful any efforts have been successful. At most these efforts appear to propose methods for ignition and not a sustained and controlled fusion reaction. Despite efforts in ICF, magnetic confinement fusion, and various methods of reducing the Coulombic barrier, there is currently no commercially feasible fusion reactor design that exists” ([0023])
In view of the above, Examiner maintains that the disclosure does not enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention.
Applicant argues “[p]ossession is shown by the disclosure itself, and not by proof that the invention ahs been reduced to commercial practice” (Remarks, p. 15). However, 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. The claims therefore fail to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. See MPEP 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
RCE Eligibility
Since prosecution is closed, this application is now eligible for a request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114. Filing an RCE helps to ensure entry of an amendment to the claims, specification, and/or drawings.
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) 270-5217, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM 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
Prosecution Insights