DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments overcome the new matter rejection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the 103 rejections, which are updated to remove the Zheng reference, which is no longer needed due to the removal of the new matter.
Applicant’s amendments overcome some, but not all, of the intended use interpretations. Some limitations are no longer being interpreted as intended use/desired results. However, others remain interpreted in this way, e.g., “the first electromagnetic wave and the uniform magnetic field configured to act together to excite a plurality of electrons…” is still interpreted as a desired result because the electromagnetic wave and the magnetic field are not actual features of the invention (which is an apparatus) but rather elements of nature that the invention hopes to manipulate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument, see Remarks dated 9/26/2025, regarding the 112(b) rejection is persuasive; this rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Applicant has cited two new 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”)
While Applicant has cited Wong in Applicant's Remarks (page 7), there do not appear to be any specific arguments or explanation of the relevance of the article with respect to Applicant’s invention. Further, the article was also authored by Applicant themselves. An article by the Applicant does not sufficiently 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’)
Again, while Applicant has cited Muir in Applicant's Remarks (page 7), there do not appear to be any specific arguments or explanation of the relevance of the article with respect to Applicant’s invention. Applicant has acknowledged this article as “unpublished commentary” (page 7), and Examiner can find no evidence that this report has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Further, the article was also authored by Applicant themselves. As note above, an article by the Applicant does not sufficiently 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.
Regarding the 101 rejections for lack of utility, the asserted utility is based on the disclosure, not the claims. The asserted utility is to a fusion reactor that has “a net positive energy production and makes the fusion reaction commercially viable,” Specification at ¶ 7 at low temperatures, e.g., “1500 to 5000 degrees Celsius,” Specification at ¶ 6. Applicant’s invention is therefore directed to a cold fusion device, an inoperable invention under 35 USC § 1011.
Accordingly, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted,
“Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it.”
Accordingly, the 112(a) rejections are maintained.
Specification
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The Specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide an adequate written description of the invention and further for failing to provide an enabling disclosure.
The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application (in this case, elected claims 1–4, 7–9, and 11). A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.
There is no reputable evidence of record to support the claim that the present invention involves nuclear fusion; nor does the Specification provide acceptable evidence that the invention is capable of operating as indicated or capable of providing a useful output.
The Specification does not enable the skilled artisan to “caus[e] a fusion reaction to occur” by an “accelerated plurality of ions and neutrals interacting with a target material” as recited in claim 1.
In the technical field and background (Specification, ¶¶ 2–3), Applicant asserts that the present invention “enable[s] more efficient fusion reactions” but then details how all previous attempts at achieving said nuclear fusion reactions have failed:
“Creating commercially viable fusion has been challenging because of a high energy input required to "ignite" reactants in a fusion reactor.,” Specification, ¶ 2
“Conventionally, the energy input into reactants is much larger than any energy created by the fusion reaction, for example a temperature at millions of degrees is required in a traditional magnetic or inertial confinement fusion reactor, resulting in a fusion energy gain factor Q less than 1, “ Specification, ¶ 2
“[C]onventional fusion reactors and methods require temperatures in excess of 150,000,000 degrees Celsius to achieve a sustainable fusion reaction with Q > 1. Such high temperature and energy requirements have made conventional fusion techniques commercially unviable,” Specification, ¶ 3
“Although attempts to achieve fusion at lower temperatures have been extensively researched, such attempts have failed to achieve commercially viable fusion processes and reactors,” Specification, ¶ 3
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have a device for “commercially viable fusion-based power” sufficient for “utility scale power generation for city grids,” (Specification, ¶ 6).
Specifically, the Specification purports to disclose a nuclear fusion device that generates a net energy gain capable of creating enormous, commercially viable amounts of power: “a net positive energy production and makes the fusion reaction commercially viable,” Specification at ¶ 7.
However, as noted by the current-state-of-the-art reference Dylla2, as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world (ITER) hopes to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.”
Further according to the official ITER3 webpage:
“The world record for controlled fusion power is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from 24 MW of power injected into its heating systems…ITER will not capture the power it produces as electricity, but as the first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy…it will prepare the way for the machine that can.”
“ITER…will be the first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy.”
There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors, thermonuclear or cold, capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational thermonuclear (hot) fusion system in the US to date. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 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. However, the laser system itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production – as stated by experts in the fusion community4,5.
When the most advanced nuclear fusion reactors in the world are only hoping to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), then Applicant’s claims to already be in possession of a nuclear fusion reactor that achieves a net energy gain appear to be wishful thinking at best.
To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s device relies on the acceleration of “ions and neutrals” to their “ion cyclotron resonance frequency,” claim 1. Applicant alleges that this process is capable of “lowering the Coulomb barrier,” and being “used to initiate and sustain a fusion reaction,” Specification at ¶ 7.
However, as is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, 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 those present on the sun. Georgia State University6 explains:
“The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107-108 K.”
The device for achieving “ion cyclotron resonance frequency” claimed by Applicant is not capable of producing or sustaining such reactions. The device provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
The apparatus of the instant invention operates at low temperatures: “1500 to 5000 degrees Celsius,” Specification, ¶ 6. As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s 1500 to 5000 degrees Celsius is equivalent to 1773.15 to 5273.15 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention fits squarely into the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
The presumption that the nuclear fusion may occur in a low-temperature environment is wholly unsupported by modern nuclear and plasma physics. Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers published in which the Applicant’s “ion cyclotron resonance frequency” has been substantiated. It is the Examiner’s conclusion that Applicant’s “ion cyclotron resonance frequency” theory is based on scientific theory that is both unproven and implausible.
Reproducibility
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. The art of the present invention, a device for generating and maintaining an exothermic fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via the acceleration of ions and neutrals (Specification, ¶¶ 5–6) is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less predictability of results. Reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions–a recipe–that would enable a skilled artisan to produce the same results. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) would be suspect.
Reproducibility of alleged low-temperature nuclear fusion results is a critical feature in determining if a disclosure adequately teaches other practitioners how to make and use an invention. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
Applicant has provided unsupported theory and speculative embodiments based upon questionable science. Therefore, such theories and the experimental results attributed to them are also questionable until such a time that Applicant rigorously proves that the suggested concepts are plausible and the calculations performed statistically sound. Since Applicant has not yet established the operability of the presently claimed invention, it is considered that the invention is lacking in utility. Given the state of the art as here discussed, it would be unreasonable to expect one skilled in the art to be able to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Undue Experimentation
It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of Applicant’s invention.
In its present form, the disclosure is completely devoid of useful instruction that might enable a person skilled in the art to follow Applicant's methods, account or control for any necessary assumptions, or manipulate the input data with any expectation of how the outcome may be affected.
Applicant admits that previous, well-funded and decades-long attempts at producing sustained and viable nuclear fusion reactors have been unsuccessful (Specification, ¶¶ 2–3). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative apparatus for achieving self-sustained nuclear fusion for net energy production (“commercially viable fusion-based power” sufficient for “utility scale power generation for city grids,” Specification, ¶ 6) in a low-temperature environment (“1500 to 5000 degrees Celsius,” Specification, ¶ 6).
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).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, Examiner summarizes the above-elaborated explanations as to why Applicant’s invention fails to satisfy the enablement requirement:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claim to “cause a fusion reaction to occur” by merely accelerating ions and neutrals towards a target material (clm. 1) is extremely broad, as evidenced by its intentionally vague language (e.g., simply rotating ions within a chamber to a specific frequency) followed by an unlikely result (“to cause a fusion reaction to occur”) as well as the fact that this process necessarily abandons modern nuclear physics, such that the outcomes of the recited method cannot be reasonably predicted and measured.
See MPEP § 2164.08.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of low-energy nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, such viability involves a complete departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
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 low-temperature nuclear 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: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
See MPEP § 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant's underlying theory is aspirational at best, and no experimental results or other supporting evidence is provided for the record.
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: The quantity of experimentation needed is infinite, as the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention, and the provided theoretical guidance is insufficient to enable one to understand the underlying sequence of phenomena required to attempt such an endeavor. See MPEP § 2164.06.
As evidenced above, the Specification, in its present state, fails to teach a person having ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention, and the Specification is therefore inadequate. The disclosed invention is not, as required by 35 U.S.C. 101, an operable invention of any practical use to the public. To be patentable, the claimed invention as a whole must be useful and accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and also State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373-4, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 851 (1999). The purpose of this requirement is to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of “real world” value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or hopeful concept, or subject matter that is simply a starting point for future investigation or research. For more examples of this real-world applicability requirement being applied, see Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96 (1966); In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the detailed reasons provided above in the Specification objection that are accordingly incorporated herein.
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a device for producing net energy for practical applications from a nuclear fusion reaction. The production of said net energy from a low-temperature fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (“commercially viable fusion-based power” sufficient for “utility scale power generation for city grids” and “fusion ignition at lower temperatures,” Specification at ¶¶ 6–7). In describing said specified utility, Applicant has set forth the inadequately supported theory that ion/neutral species rotations to a specific frequency in a cold fusion environment can produce and sustain thermonuclear reactions (claim 1). This fact creates a type of deficiency in which an assertion of specific and substantial utility for the claimed invention made by an Applicant is not credible. See MPEP 2107.01(II) for further examples of the Federal courts’ treatment of inventions claiming incredible utility. The Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant's invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. As set forth in the objection to the Specification above, there is currently no reputable evidence of record to indicate the invention has been reduced to the point of providing an operative low-temperature nuclear fusion system. See also In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable and therefore lacking in utility for its purported purpose of creating the viable amounts of energy disclosed.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are further 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, for the reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification as well as in the prior section, which are accordingly incorporated herein.
As set forth in MPEP § 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted,
“Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the Specification cannot enable one to use it.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains 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, for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification, which are accordingly incorporated herein.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is doubtful that the Applicant had actual or constructive possession of the claimed device at the time of filing.
Claims 1–2, 7–9, and 11 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification as well as in the 101 section above, which are accordingly incorporated herein; as such, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
A Note from the Examiner about Desired Result-type, Intended Use-type, and Capable-of type Limitations
Claim 1 is replete with statements that are either essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. These include:
“the first electromagnetic wave and the uniform magnetic field configured to act together to excite a plurality of electrons of atoms in at least one reactant gas introduced into said reactor chamber to their electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) frequency and create a plurality of ions of said reactant gas to form a plasma of ions and neutrals in said reaction chamber having a first radius of rotation within said reactor chamber,” claim 1
“the second electromagnetic wave and the uniform magnetic field configured to act together to further excite the plurality of ions in the plasma to their ion cyclotron resonance (ICR) frequency and accelerate the plurality of ions and neutrals to an increased radius of rotation within said reactor chamber,” claim 1
“accelerated plurality of ions and neutrals interacting with a target material in said reactor chamber…the interacting causing at least one or more respective fusion reactions to occur,” claim 1
These clauses do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the applied reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the alleged intended use. See MPEP § 2111–2115. MPEP § 2114(II) states:
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”
Additionally, case law dictates that “Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions.” In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531.
As further set forth in MPEP § 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim. In this case, the claim is therefore not limited by the ions, neutrals, electric fields, or frequencies themselves, which are all producible within the apparatus—only the apparatus itself is limiting. Any one of the systems in the cited references is capable of being used in the same manner and for the alleged intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said alleged capability exists, which is the case for the cited references.
The claim is further being interpreted under MPEP 2111.04, in which the “whereby,” “thereby,” and “such that”-type clauses are not given patentable weight because they simply suggest intended results that may allegedly follow naturally from the claimed structures.
All claim limitations directed to a non-limiting desired result/intended use are shown below in brackets […].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 5,981,955) in view of Wong3 (US 2015/0380113).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses (Fig. 16) a fusion reactor system, comprising: a cylindrical reactor chamber (area within vessel 11, labeled in Fig. 1); a magnet (31) surrounding the reactor chamber, said magnet configured to provide a uniform magnetic field along a longitudinal axis of the reactor chamber (“a uniform magnetic field,” col. 7, l. 11); a first electromagnetic wave generator (e.g., horn 26a, Fig. 12) coupled to a first antenna (41) provided at one end of said reactor chamber configured to provide a first electromagnetic wave (22a enrichment region 14) of a first frequency to said reactor chamber, [the first electromagnetic wave and the uniform magnetic field configured to act together to excite a plurality of electrons of atoms in at least one reactant gas introduced into said reactor chamber to their electron cyclotron resonance (ECR) frequency and create a plurality of ions of said reactant gas to form a plasma of ions and neutrals in said reaction chamber having a first radius of rotation within said reactor chamber] (“a resonant frequency,” col. 6, l. 43; see also “ECRH [electron cyclotron resonant heating] zone 22,” e.g., Fig. 4; Examiner notes that, because Wong teaches the responsible structure, then if Applicant’s wave and magnetic field are capable of achieving this claimed desired result, so allegedly is Wong’s); and a second electromagnetic wave generator (e.g., horn 26b, Fig. 12) coupled to a second antenna (another one of the antennae 41) provided at the other end of said reactor chamber configured to provide a second electromagnetic wave (22b) of a second frequency said reactor chamber, [the second electromagnetic wave and the uniform magnetic field configured to act together to further excite the plurality of ions in the plasma to their ion cyclotron resonance (ICR) frequency and accelerate the plurality of ions and neutrals to an increased radius of rotation within said reactor chamber] (“a resonant frequency,” col. 6, l. 43; see also “ion cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) in the enrichment zone,” col. 3, ll. 26-27; Examiner notes that, because Wong teaches the responsible structure, then if Applicant’s wave and magnetic field are capable of achieving this claimed desired result, so allegedly is Wong’s), said reactor chamber further comprising a cylindrical reaction vessel (11) disposed along said longitudinal axis of said reactor chamber, the cylindrical reaction vessel defining an independent fusion reaction site via the cylindrical reaction vessel comprising an ECR antenna (41) configured to be coupled to said first electromagnetic wave generator (the antennae 41 are at least indirectly coupled to the generators 26 via their shared surrounding vessel) and an ICR antenna (another one of the antennae 41, e.g., Fig. 16) configured to be coupled to said second electromagnetic wave generator (the antennae 41 are at least indirectly coupled to the generators 26 via their shared surrounding vessel, e.g., Fig. 16), said reactor chamber comprising an electron emitting material (the presence of electrons in, for example, zone 22, necessitates the presence of an electron emitting material), the inclusion of the electron emitting material configured to reduce a coulombic barrier of a fusion reaction and create an electron-rich region within the reactor chamber via the electron emitting material (according to the Specification at ¶ 62, the coulombic barrier is inherently lowered due to a screen of electrons, which Wong discloses in col. 7, ll. 64-65: “ECRH plasma source creates a localized zone 22 where the electrons are heated”), and [said accelerated plurality of ions and neutrals interacting with a target material in said reactor chamber at least at one cylindrical reaction vessel, the interacting causing at least one or more respective fusion reaction to occur] (Examiner notes that, because Wong teaches the responsible structure, then if Applicant’s target interactions are capable of achieving this claimed desired result, so allegedly is Wong’s).
Wong does not explicitly suggest a plurality of adjacent vessels, state that the magnet may be a superconducting magnet, or disclose that the electron emitting material may be coated on an inner surface of the reactor chamber and comprising lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6), thoriated tungsten (W), and tantalum (Ta).
Wong3 does. Wong3 is in the same art area of alleged fusion reactors and teaches using a plurality of adjacent cylindrical reaction vessels (e.g., 306, 308, Fig. 3). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the adjacent vessels as taught by Wong3 in their Fig. 3 embodiment in order to create an interim area to be vacuum purged, ¶ 147, for the formation of “high-purity helium-3 suitable for use” as “Helium-3 is a highly valuable isotope used for neutron detection, medical imaging, and cryogenics,” as further noted by Wong3 in ¶ 172.
Additionally, Wong3 teaches that the magnet is a superconducting magnet (“a superconducting magnet,” ¶ 88). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to select a superconducting magnet for the type of magnet used in Wong’s apparatus because, as is known in the art, these types of magnets “can produce stronger magnetic fields” than traditional magnets7. Additionally, Wong3 notes that a superconducting magnet can create a magnetic field strong enough to “both create a plasma and cause the said plasma to rotate,” ¶ 88.
Additionally, Wong3 teaches (Fig. 16) that the electron emitting material (1603) may be coated (“The emitting material 1603 may be a…coating,” ¶ 179) on an inner surface of the reaction chamber (1601) and comprise lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6), thoriated tungsten (W), and tantalum (Ta) (“lanthanum hexaboride,” ¶ 179).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the lanthanum hexaboride because, as explained by Wong3 (¶ 179), it is an “efficient electron emitter[].”
Regarding claim 2, modified Wong teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong additionally teaches wherein the first frequency of the first electromagnetic wave comprises a range (e.g., “Each of the ECRH horns provide energy to the corresponding ECRH zones at different tuned frequencies,” col. 4, ll. 9-10), and the second frequency of the second electromagnetic wave comprises a range (e.g., ICRH frequencies are controllable via “RF frequency adjustment controller 274” per the discussion in col. 18, ll. 43-58).
This combination additionally teaches wherein the system is capable of being operating such that the first frequency of the first electromagnetic wave comprises a range of 2-560 GHz and the second frequency of the second electromagnetic wave comprises a range of 1-350 MHz (e.g., Wong3 teaches 2.45 GHz, ¶¶ 169-170, 7.6 MHz, ¶ 170, 6 MHz, ¶ 225). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have operated the frequencies to be within the desired ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wong teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong3 additionally teaches wherein the reactor chamber comprises at least one of stainless steel and titanium (e.g., “stainless steel,” ¶ 92). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the claimed stainless steel material because stainless steel is allegedly capable of hosting the claimed nuclear fusion reactions (¶ 92). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wong teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches wherein the target material comprises at least one of stainless steel (e.g., Wong3, “stainless steel,” ¶ 92) and titanium. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the claimed stainless steel material because stainless steel is allegedly capable of hosting the claimed nuclear fusion reactions (Wong3, ¶ 92). Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wong teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Wong3 additionally teaches wherein the at least one reactant gas comprises a hydrogen species (“hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, ¶ 83). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the claimed hydrogen material because it is known in the art to (under extreme temperatures and pressures) be capable of forming a potentially fusionable plasma (Wong3, ¶ 83). Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 11, modified Wong teaches all the elements of the parent claim and Wong additionally teaches wherein said reactor chamber further includes reflectors on the one end of said reactor chamber and reflectors on the other end of said reactor chamber (“plasma chamber system with one or more magnetic mirrors disposed at one or opposing ends of the elongated chamber so that resonant ions are reflected between the two mirrors,” col. 6, ll. 51-54).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Cold fusion devices have been to the federal circuit and lost twice. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and In re Dash, No. 04-1145, 08/439,712 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
2 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86. See the 6-page NPL reference excerpt in the file 01/21/2021.
3 What will ITER do? iter.org/sci/Goals
See the 2-page NPL reference in the file 01/21/2021.
4 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
5 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
6 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnet