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 08/24/2026. No amendments were made in the reply (see Remarks, p. 2). Claims 1-4 are pending in the application and 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 claimed invention is directed towards “[a] method of electron screening” (claim 1). The method would allegedly be capable of “substantially offsetting or reducing, based on the electron screening, the effect of the Coulomb barrier between nuclei of the light element atoms” (claim 3) and “induc[ing] a fusion reaction between nuclei” (claim 4) by “transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation, having an excitation frequency, to an electrically conductive base structure” (claim 1).
According to the disclosure, application of EM radiation (e.g., by a laser) to the electrically conductive base structure (e.g., an electrode) causes electrons to oscillate, creating an electric field and ponderomotive forces:
“transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation ... to an electrically conductive base structure, ... [and] in response to the the [sic] EM radiation interacting with the coating material, the free electrons move, along a direction of a taper defining the tapering section, toward and away from the tip of the tubular electrode and between at least two localized regions of the tubular electrode, wherein the movement of the free electrons generates periodic charge density variations around a portion of the light element atoms” (claim 1)
“based on the movement of the free electrons, creating an electric field greater than about 108 volts/meter at a location proximate to the two localized regions and providing localized compression by ponderomotive forces” (claim 4)
“The region of high electron density can be provided by using a microwave generator, radio frequency (RF) wave generator, or similar device, associated with the base structure. In operation, the high electron density generator causes the electrons to move in a first direction ... and then quickly reverses the flow of electrons away from the discontinuity” ([0043])
“A laser may also be directed on the discontinuity and establish a similar forward and reverse flow of electrons to establish an area of high electron density peaks” ([0044])
“When a high-density electron generator ... is applied to the electrode 100, electron movement as shown by double arrows [in FIG. 1] occurs” ([0049])
“it is theorized that the highly localized electron density, creates a ponderomotive force” ([0052])
“In general, a ponderomotive force is a force that is created from an oscillating electric field” ([0064]; see also [0065], [0100])
“the movement of the free electrons along the direction of the taper and the resulting periodic charge density variations ... describe the physical consequence of the positively recited transmitting and coating steps acting on the recited structure” (Remarks dated 08/24/2026, p. 10)
Key to Applicant’s invention, the ponderomotive forces allegedly drive electrons into the base structure to provide an enhanced electron shielding effect and reduce or eliminate the Coulomb barrier:
“A method of electron screening, the method comprising: transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation...; and receiving the EM radiation” (claim 1)
“substantially offsetting or reducing, based on the electron screening, the effect of the Coulomb barrier between nuclei of the light element atoms” (claim 3)
“The present inventions break the prior art paradigms by ... modifying the Coulomb barrier” ([0019])
“It is theorized that among other things, the presence of the high electron density lowers the coulomb barrier, and preferably creates a negative well, that permits the fusion fuel ... to fuse.... Further, it is theorized that the highly localized electron density, creates a ponderomotive force that drives the fusion fuel together, and also drives the electrons into the substructure of the base material, enhancing the fusion reaction of the fusion fuel” ([0052])
“Embodiments of the present invention may lower or reduce the Coulomb barrier, and may eliminate it” ([0062])
“embodiments of the present invention may lower or reduce the Coulomb barrier through the use of effects such as: space charge or electron shielding effects; large E-fields, high electron densities.... Each of these alone and in combination reduces the Coulomb barrier, which makes it easier for the nuclei to tunnel through or overcome the potential barrier, thus increasing the probability that the fusion reaction will take place” ([0063])
“in embodiments of the present invention the ponderomotive force has the effect of crushing, or compacting the substructure containing the fusion fuel forcing the fusion fuel into contact and to fuse” ([0064]; see also [0077])
“An advantage of using weakly ionized plasma is that the reactants largely comprise neutral atoms. The electrons interposed between the nuclei shield the repulsive Coulomb force between the positively charged nuclei. This phenomenon affects the Coulomb repulsion and may reduce the Coulomb barrier.... In an embodiment of the present invention, the high density electrons are driven by ponderomotive forces into the substructure amongst the fusion fuel. It is believed that these electrons in the substructure provide an electron shielding effect which reduces the Coulomb barrier and enhances the fusion reaction rate” ([0066])
“The key feature of this new fusion concept depends on the screening effect of electrons around the neutrals” ([0083])
Purportedly, reducing the Coulomb barrier by electron screening allows for controllable, sustained fusion reactions having sufficient energy for practical applications:
“creating an electric field ... and providing localized compression by ponderomotive forces that induces a fusion reaction between nuclei of at least a portion of the light element atoms” (claim 4)
“The present inventions relate to ... creating controlling, conducting, and optimizing fusion activities of nuclei. In particular, the present inventions relate to, among other things, fusion activities ... for the utilization of energy produced from these activities” ([0002])
“The present methods, devices and systems for conducting fusion reactions solve [the] problems, deficiencies, and inadequacies associated with prior attempts to create a viable controlled fusion system.... Moreover, available aneutronic embodiments of controlled fusion avoid the potential issues associated with managing neutrons produced in other fusion reactions, and make devices utilizing these embodiments readily usable in devices that are closely associated with living entities, e.g., a pacemaker” ([0022])
“the present invention relates to ... creating, measuring, controlling, conducting, and optimizing fusion activities of nuclei. In particular, the present inventions relate to ... fusion activities that are conducted individually on a very small scale; and for the utilization of the energy, materials, and particles that are produced from these small-scale fusion activities. The present inventions further related to ... small devices for causing and controlling these small fusion activities, and utilizing the products of these fusion activities” ([0032])
“the present methods, apparatuses, and systems ... provide for controlled fusion reactions.... Further, embodiments of the present inventions create or modify quantum or other effects to provide for, or enhance, the fusion reaction” ([0033])
“The submicron controlled fusion device can be associated with a device for generating electricity. The devices would include, for example, sensor chips that have been adapted to generate a current, voltage or both in response to the heat generated by the fusion reaction, in response to the charged fusion product particles generated by the fusion reaction and both. Thus, as examples, (A) a radiation detection type diode can be adapted to produce electricity from fusion products, (B) a thermoelectric device could convert a portion of the heat energy into electric current, (C) a fluid could be forced to flow, expand or incur a phase change so as to create some electricity or other useful energy. The devices for generating electricity from controlled fusion reactions could also include ... direct conversion to electricity.... [I]f the means of direct conversion to electricity was only partially efficient, it could be deployed in combination with a thermoelectric device to create electricity from the heat remaining after deployment of the direct conversion mechanism” ([0055])
“the overall efficiency of such a system is greater, making it easier to attain a large Q factor and the corresponding energy gain” ([0081])
“This type of positive feedback generates stronger screening effects and could create sustainable fusion process for energy production” ([0083])
“A submicron controlled fusion device is associated with a detection chip that has been adapted to convert the fusion product particles into electricity” ([0093])
“The electrical generation assembly of Example 4 powers a circuit in an electronic device.... [T]he device could be an independent unit with a primary function of providing electricity and/or heat to some other device” ([0095])
“The collective energy from the array [of substrates loaded with a fusion fuel] can then be converted into electrical energy, or other forms of energy” ([0099])
Not only does the invention purport to generate fusion reactions, the claimed method, when read in light of the specification, generates fusion reactions at low (e.g., room or ambient) temperatures with only physical containment:
“The present inventions break the prior art paradigms by ... modifying the Coulomb barrier ... and essentially eliminating the need for confinement to contain the fusion reaction” ([0019])
“the present methods, apparatuses, and systems ... provide for controlled fusion reactions, and preferably with simple containment schemes (without the need for any complicated containment schemes)” ([0033])
“This collective and coherent electron motion, of the present inventions, takes place at room and elevated temperatures. Thus, the present invention provides for ambient temperature and above superconductivity” ([0050])
“the high-density, lightly ionized, and colder plasma employed in embodiments of the present inventions” ([0079])
Applicant’s asserted utility of the claimed invention is therefore practical energy production from low temperature fusion reactions.
Conditions for Fusion
Initiating fusion requires overcoming the Coulomb barrier, which is only known to occur at extremely high temperatures (such as temperatures in the range of 107-108 K) and at extremely high pressures (such as those present on the sun)1. As acknowledged by Applicant ([0011]-[0018]), conventional fusion systems are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion systems which produce (or attempt to produce) these conditions in order to generate a plasma with sufficient energy to overcome this Coulombic repulsion2 (see also [0060]-[0061], [0079]). These systems rely on mechanisms such as inertial or magnetic confinement in order to prevent direct contact of the hot plasma with solid structures of the fusion system (e.g., a physical chamber)2.
Fusion reactions which are hypothesized or alleged to occur at conditions other than these extreme temperatures and pressures are known as cold fusion reactions or low-temperature nuclear reactions. In other words, “cold fusion” describes any nuclear fusion reaction which purportedly occurs at energies (i.e., temperatures) much lower than those known to be required. 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. A multi-year, multi-disciplinary study3 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). 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).
As discussed above, the claimed invention purports to operate at significantly lower temperatures (e.g., at or near room temperature) than those known to be required for nuclear fusion to occur and without the need for inertial or magnetic confinement mechanisms by allegedly enhancing electron screening to reduce or eliminate the Coulomb barrier ([0019], [0033], [0050], [0052], [0062]-[0064], [0066], [0077], [0079], [0083], claims 1, 3-4). These disclosed temperatures (e.g., generally well below 102 K)4 are clearly many orders of magnitude below the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required for fusion reactions. Applicant’s claimed “fusion reaction” is therefore a cold fusion reaction.
Not only does Applicant explicitly state that the alleged fusion reactions could occur at room temperature ([0050]), but Applicant also does not disclose any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required for causing these reactions. Further, the present invention bears no similarity to the thermonuclear fusion systems known to have successfully initiated fusion. For example, Applicant purports to have produced fusion reactions without inertial or magnetic confinement, using only physical containment ([0019], [0078]). This is despite Applicant admitting the prior art expressly acknowledges that physical containment of such reactions is “impossible” ([0017]-[0018]). Said differently, Applicant’s method is not capable of producing or sustaining fusion as the method provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the extreme conditions known to be required to induce fusion.
Net Energy Fusion
The ratio of the energy produced from fusion reactions to the energy used or lost in creating the fusion reactions is commonly referred to as the “Q” value ([0012]). Fusion reactors which achieve a Q > 1, are said to have achieved “breakeven” or a net energy gain. In order to be useful as a practical energy source, a fusion reactor would need to controllably and sustainably produce fusion reactions having a Q > 1 ([0012]). Net energy gain from fusion reactors 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 goal5.
Applicant acknowledges this challenge, disclosing:
“For 60 years the science and technology communities have been striving to achieve controlled and economically viable fusion. 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.... Further, until the present inventions, it was believed that a paradigm existed in that achieving fusion of reactants was unobtainable without incredibly high temperatures.... As a consequence, it was further believed that there was no reason to construct, or investigate the composition of, a nuclear fusion reactor with lower temperature reactant confinement” ([0011])
“[T]he art 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” ([0012])
“The importance and value of achieving economically viable controlled fusion has long been recognized and sought after in the art. Controlled fusion may have applications in energy production.... In the energy production area, controlled fusion has been envisioned to provide a solution to global energy and environmental challenges.... Accordingly, there has been a long-standing and unfulfilled need for a controlled fusion reaction, and the clean energy ... associated with such a reaction” ([0020])
Even with decades of research by the international scientific community, there currently exist no fusion systems (thermonuclear or cold) capable of producing such useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational thermonuclear fusion system in the United States. The system delivers as much as 500 trillion watts of power to a fusion target using 192 of the world’s highest energy lasers in order to create temperatures on the order of 107 K and pressures on the order of 1010 atm6. In December 2022, the NIF 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 fusion 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 loss (see also instant specification, [0012]). Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment was far from a demonstration of practical energy production – as stated by experts in the fusion community7,8,9,10.
Discussion
While the most successful fusion experiment was unable to create a fusion energy output sufficient for practical applications using thermonuclear fusion mechanisms, Applicant alleges the present invention “break[s] the prior art paradigm” and “solve[s] ... problems, deficiencies, and inadequacies associated with prior art attempts to create a viable controlled fusion system” ([0019], [0022]). Compared to NIF’s large, complex, and sophisticated systems (see also [0017]), the present invention purportedly generates a commercially viable fusion energy gain at room or ambient temperatures using a suspiciously simple set up: “the present inventions relate to ... fusion activities that are conducted individually on a very small scale” and “utilize the creation of submicron regions, and preferably nano regions ... of high charge densities to provide for controlled fusion reactions, and preferably with simple containment schemes (without the need for any complicated containment schemes), and more preferably without the need for any magnetic fields” ([0032]-[0033]).
The crux of Applicant’s invention relies on enhancing electron screening to lower the Coulomb barrier for inducing controllable and sustainable cold fusion reactions for practical energy production (claims 1, 3-4, [0002], [0019], [0022], [0032]-[0033], [0050], [0052], [0055], [0058], [0062]-[0064], [0066], [0077], [0081], [0083], [0093], [0095], [0099]). However, there is no widespread support in the scientific community for Applicant’s theories of achieving cold fusion in this manner.
Electron screening is a real, but naturally occurring phenomenon. Attempts to manipulate and enhance electron screening, however, have been inconsistent and unverifiable. For example, Cruz11 acknowledges: “there is still no solid theory which can describe quantitatively the observed enhancements” from electron screening (Abstract) and the “mechanism of the enhancement is not fully understood.... These arguments motivate further studies” (p. 3). Similarly, Vesic12 also acknowledges “[e]xperimental findings are systematically at odds with the theory” of enhanced electron screening, leading to “the absence of a reasonable theoretical predication” of the value of the electron screening for any particular metal (p. 1), noting that “there is no valid theory that explains the electron screening in much simpler environments such as metals” (p. 1). Vesic attempted to recreate previous findings of significant electron screening effects in high-Z metals (Abstract, p. 2; see also instant specification, [0035], [0037]-[0038], [0063], [0066], [0083], [0086]), but was unable to do so, concluding that: “It seems that the results previously obtained by another research group involving high-Z targets and reporting large electron screening potentials are erroneous” (p. 8), and “These results raise the question about the validity of the measurements that showed large electron screening potentials in nuclear reactions involving high-Z targets, and point to a dependence of the electron screening potential on the position of the target nuclei in the metallic lattice” (Abstract). Vesic further stated that future work is “certainly needed” because “[the] electron screening mechanism in stellar plasma ... remains unknown (p. 8).
Even Applicant’s own disclosure acknowledges the hypothetical and theoretical nature of the asserted effects. For example, Applicant discloses (emphasis added):
“The area of high electron density is shown as 102 and the high electric field region is 104.... [I]t is presently believed that this is primarily a surface effect” ([0049])
“Thus, it is theorized that this collective and coherent motion of electrons is similar to, and may be, the type of electron movement exhibited in superconductive materials” ([0050])
“In operation it is believed that the creation of the area of high electron density enables, facilitates, or furthers the fusion reaction of the fusion fuel. It is theorized that among other things, the presence of the high electron density lowers the coulomb barrier.... Further, it is theorized that the highly localized electron density, creates a ponderomotive force that drives the fusion fuel together, and also drives the electrons into the substructure of the base material, enhancing the fusion reaction of the fusion fuel” ([0052])
“The theories put forth in this specification ... many [sic] not be required or practiced to utilize the present inventions. It is further understood that the present inventions may lead to new, and heretofore unknown theories to explain the fusion methods, devices and system of the present inventions” ([0059])
“This phenomenon affects the Coulomb repulsion and may reduce the Coulomb barrier.... It is believed that these electrons in the substructure provide an electron shielding effect which reduces the Coulomb barrier and enhances the fusion reaction rate” ([0066])
“It is believed that this leads to an increased rate of tunneling and a greater occurrence of fusion reactions” ([0069])
“the compression induced by the centrifugal force leads to an increased density of particles in the region in which fusion events are expected to be concentrated” ([0077])
“Thus, in the region where fusion reactions are thought to be concentrated, the present invention achieves particle densities in a physical container many orders of magnitude greater than other methods known in the art” ([0078])
“It is expected that the fusion process will release more electrons through heating or collisions with fusion products. These processes could cause larger electron density fluctuations.... This type of positive feedback generates screening effects and could create sustainable fusion process for energy production” ([0083])
While the specification describes a single experiment “to test the behavior of electrons,” there does not appear to be any discussion regarding the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. of the experiment let alone any actual experimental results. Nor is there any indication that Applicant has successfully demonstrated successful fusion using the claimed methodology. The specification merely conjectures: “The device of Example 2 has been operated in a cloud chamber to test the behavior of electrons. According to theory and past experiments, the cloud chamber will show the emission of fusion product particles from electrodes. The fusion products will include helium-3” ([0091]).
The claimed invention for generating and maintaining an exothermic cold fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source by enhanced electron screening is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”). 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 and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers published in which Applicant’s methodology for enhancing electron screening, reducing the Coulomb barrier, and inducing cold fusion reactions for practical energy production has been substantiated. Applicant further has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating a scientific consensus that these theories can practicably achieve the disclosed astonishing feats for fusion systems. For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
According to MPEP 2107, there is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an Applicant to support an asserted utility, therapeutic or otherwise. Rather, the character and amount of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed (Ex parte Ferguson, 117 USPQ 229 (Bd. App. 1957)) and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. Evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true. Based on the above analysis, Examiner concludes that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider the utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention to be a specific and substantial utility that is credible. As has been established above, the present invention is directed towards a mechanism for producing fusion reactions that contradicts the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Further, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the alleged fusion reactions and practical energy production by the present invention. 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 temperatures including room temperature), 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 inducing cold fusion reactions or net energy fusion. There exist no systems or methods to date which 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).
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 claims are directed towards “[a] method of electron screening” (claim 1), “substantially offsetting or reducing, based on the electron screening, the effect of the Coulomb barrier” (claim 3), and “induc[ing] a fusion reaction” (claim 4). The claimed method alleges to accomplish such results by “transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation, having an excitation frequency, to an electrically conductive base structure, the electrically conductive base structure including light element atoms and free electrons” (claim 1) and “coating the tubular electrode with a coating material” (claim 1). These appear to be the only actual steps in the claimed method, suggesting that the method would be capable of initiating fusion reactions by merely applying EM radiation to a base structure loaded with light element atoms and free electrons and coated with a coating material. However, as discussed above, no prior art fusion system has been able to achieve such results. Therefore, if Applicant’s claimed invention is capable of such feats, essential mechanisms for inducing net energy fusion reactions have been omitted from the claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
(B)-(D) The nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill in the 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 ([0002], [0022], [0032], [0050], [0055], [0093], [0095], [0099]). The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands the concepts of nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions and would be capable of delving into the scientific literature on the topics and ascertaining how it could be applied to the present invention. As currently disclosed by Applicant, such viability involves a compete departure from accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear, plasma, and particle physics and chemistry. Thus, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science. Further, the effects as 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).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Experiments attempting to produce fusion reactions at temperatures significantly lower than those known to be required for these processes have been predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data. Further, even the results of thermonuclear fusion experiments are predictably unpredictable. As discussed above, the most successful thermonuclear fusion experiment to date was unable to produce a net energy gain, despite over half a century of research. Applicant has thus set forth the desired result of net energy fusion reactions without identifying how one could achieve these results. 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, there are currently no known fusion reactors capable of producing a net energy gain. 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: As discussed above, 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and the enablement requirement. Based on the above analyses, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility for the reasons set forth above. In the above analyses, Examiner has provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would reasonably doubt this asserted utility of the claimed invention. “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention’s asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Claims 1-4 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons set forth in the above analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. 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, for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the specification, which are accordingly incorporated herein. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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 the 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 causing 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.
Claims 1-4 are still further rejected under 35 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 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, 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(a) as discussed further below. 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.” Because the invention as claimed does not have a specific and substantial utility that is credible, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “[a] method of electron screening.” The only positively recited steps in the claimed method are the steps of “transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation ... to an electrically conductive base structure, the electrically conductive base structure including light element atoms and free electrons” and “coating the tubular electrode with a coating material.” As discussed above, the specification establishes that the oscillation of electrons (i.e., the claimed “in response to the the [sic] EM radiation interacting with the coating material, the free electrons move, along a direction of a taper defining the tapering section, toward and away from the tip of the tubular electrode and between at least two localized regions of the tubular electrode, wherein the movement of the free electrons generates periodic charge density variations around a portion of the light element atoms that are disposed in the at least two localized regions”) occurs as a result of applying EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure ([0043]-[0044], [0049], [0052], [0064]-[0065], [0100]) which, in turn, results in the alleged “electron screening” ([0052], [0063]-[0064], [0066], [0077]). In other words, the limitations directed towards “electron screening” and the movement of the electrons are directed towards intended results of the invention. This is further acknowledged by Applicant: “the movement of the free electrons along the direction of the taper and the resulting periodic charge density variations ... describe the physical consequence of the positively recited transmitting and coating steps acting on the recited structure” (Remarks dated 08/24/2026, p. 10). Similarly, claims 3 and 4 are also directed towards intended results of the invention and do not appear to recite any additional steps of the claimed method ([0043]-[0044], [0049], [0052], [0063]-[0066], [0077], [0100]). The claims therefore appear to recite that merely transmitting EM radiation (of unspecified magnitude) to an electrically conductive base structure which includes light element atoms (encompassing any element or ion with an atomic mass of 62 or less as defined in [0006] of the specification) and free electrons and is coated with a coating material of gold, copper, or silver would result in (1) electron screening (claim 1), (2) movement of the free electrons (claim 1), (3) periodic charge density variations (claim 1), (4) substantial offsetting or reduction of the effect of the Coulomb barrier (claim 3), (5) creation of an electric field (claim 4), (6) localized compression by ponderomotive forces (claim 4), and (7) fusion reactions between nuclei (claim 4). However, as discussed above, the skilled artisan would be unable to determine how to achieve these results with only a step of transmitting EM radiation and coating the electrode. The claims therefore do not recite sufficient structures, materials, or steps for accomplishing the claimed intended results and appear to be incomplete, rendering the boundaries of the claims unclear.
Claim 1 recites “a portion of the light element atoms that are disposed in the at least two localized regions [of the tubular electrode].” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the claim. While the claim previously recites “the electrically conductive base structure including light atoms,” there is no prior recitation of the light element atoms being disposed in the tubular electrode.
Claim 2 recites “the source of EM radiation is configured to generate EM radiation having a wavelength of from about 10 microns to about 0.1 micron.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the source of EM radiation.” It is unclear if the claim is intending to refer to a source of the “transmitt[ed] electromagnetic (EM) radiation” previously recited in parent claim 1 or something else.
Claim 4 recites “at least a portion of the light element atoms.” It is unclear if this is referring to the same portion as the “portion of the light element atoms” previously recited in parent claim 1, or another portion.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2005/0129160 (“Indech”) in view of WO Publication No. 2012/163966 (“Groeneweg”), US Publication No. 2009/0086877 (“Hagelstein”), and, if necessary, “Surface-plasmon-based electron acceleration” (“Irvine”).
Regarding claim 1, Indech (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIGS. 1-2) discloses a method of allegedly electron screening ([0023], [0033]), the method comprising:
an electrically conductive base structure (10, 20) ([0057], [0059]), the electrically conductive base structure including light element atoms (e.g., deuterium) and free electrons ([0011]-[0013], [0057]), and the electrically conductive base structure comprising a tubular electrode having a tapering section defining a tip at an end of the tubular electrode ([0012], [0046]).
Indech does not appear to disclose transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation to the electrically conductive base structure. However, Indech discloses the method includes ionizing the light element atoms (e.g., deuterium) to load the light element atoms within the electrically conductive base structure ([0057]). Groeneweg (previously cited) (see FIG. 2) is similarly directed towards a method of allegedly electron screening (12:5-24), the method comprising an electrically conductive base structure (9’) including light element atoms (e.g., deuterium) and comprising an electrode (2:14-31, 9:8-37). Groeneweg teaches ionizing the light element atoms to load the light element atoms within the electrically conductive base structure by transmitting EM radiation, having an excitation frequency, to the electrically conductive base structure and receiving the EM radiation along an entire surface of the electrode (1:33-2:36, 2:14-36, 4:4-27, 7:31-35, 8:12-28, 10:19-11:25). Groeneweg further teaches transmitting the EM radiation provides the advantages of accelerating and promoting loading of the light element atoms into an electrically conductive base structure (1:33-2:26, 10:19-11:25). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include a step of transmitting EM radiation, as taught by Groeneweg, in Indech’s method for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Indech in order to enhance light element atom loading, as suggested by Groeneweg, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Groeneweg further suggests coating the electrode with a coating material (15:34-36), but appears to be silent as to the specific material of the coating. However, it was known in the art to provide a coating on an electrode used in a method for alleged electron screening. For example, Hagelstein (previously cited) is similarly directed towards a method of allegedly electron screening and teaches an electrode (502, 504, 514, 516) comprising a silver coating material (“M”) ([0268]-[0269], [0322]). Hagelstein further teaches the coating provides the advantages of enhancing loading of the light element atoms in the electrode ([0268]-[0269], [0322]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify Indech’s method to include a step of coating the tubular electrode, as taught by Hagelstein, for the benefits thereof. Thus, further modification of Indech in order to further enhance deuterium loading, as suggested by Hagelstein, would have been obvious to a POSA.
As discussed above, and as best understood by Examiner in view of the disclosure and Applicant’s remarks, the features of “in response to the the [sic] EM radiation interacting with the coating material, the free electrons move, along a direction of a taper defining the tapering section, toward and away from the tip of the tubular electrode and between at least two localized regions of the tubular electrode” and “wherein the movement of the free electrons generates periodic charge density variations around a portion of the light element atoms that are disposed in the at least two localized regions” allegedly occur as a result of transmitting the EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure ([0043]-[0044], [0049], [0052], [0064]-[0065], [0100]; see also Remarks dated 08/24/2026, p. 10). Indech’s method, modified to include the step of transmitting EM radiation as taught by Groeneweg and to include the step of coating the tubular electrode as taught by Groeneweg and Hagelstein, includes a step of transmitting EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure (see Indech, [0057]; see also Groeneweg, 1:33-2:36, 2:14-36, 4:4-27, 7:31-35, 8:12-28, 10:19-11:25). Therefore, if the invention of claim 1 is capable of achieving the alleged intended result (or “physical consequence”) of the electron motion and charge density variation, it would appear that the modified Indech’s method, which also teaches the transmitting and coating steps acting on the structure as recited in claim 1, would also allegedly be capable of achieving these intended results or “consequence[s].”
Nevertheless, if necessary, Indech discloses increasing the density of particles in the base structure would allegedly increase the probability of fusion ([0035], [0045]) and Hagelstein similarly teaches that increasing the energy and density of particles in the base structure would allegedly increase the probability of fusion reactions ([0066]-[0070], [0081], [0271], [0273], [0360], [0407]). Irvine (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3, 9) similarly teaches transmitting EM radiation (“laser oscillator”) to an electrically conductive structure (“metal film,” “Ag film”) (p. 013815: “employs femtosecond laser pulse excitation of surface-plasmon (SP) waves.... [A]n enhanced high-gradient evanescent electric field is formed at the surface of the metal film”), the EM radiation having an excitation frequency (p. 013815-4: “these local charges oscillate at a frequency equal to that of the incident laser radiation (375 THz)”). Irvine teaches that, in response to the EM radiation interacting with the conductive structure, free electrons in the conductive structure move back and forth, in opposing directions perpendicular to a surface of an end of the conductive structure, between at least two localized regions of the conductive structure, generating periodic charge density variations at the at least two localized regions (p. 013185-4: “The oscillating nature of the SP wave is clearly evidenced by the ‘quivering’ motion of each sample electron trajectory”). The skilled artisan would have therefore recognized that the modified Indech’s method, including the step of transmitting EM radiation onto the electrically conductive base structure as taught by Groeneweg, would have therefore also resulted in the oscillating motion of electrons as taught by Irvine. Irvine further teaches this electron movement mechanism is an effective method for low-energy electron acceleration, which enhances the electric field (p. 013815-2: “Localization of the wave to the small spatial region ... results in an increase in the energy density, which is manifested as a relative enhancement.... This enhancement of the electric field ... provides a large electromagnetic field gradient that is well suited for ponderomotive acceleration ... resulting in a net-time-averaged ponderomotive force and an overall gain in kinetic energy”; p. 0131815-1: “SP waves to be an effective method for low-energy electron acceleration”). It would have therefore also been obvious to a POSA to further modify Indech’s method, if necessary, with the electron movement techniques taught by Irvine for the predictable advantage of accelerating low-energy electrons and increasing the electric field, as taught by Irvine, which would thus allegedly increase the probability of fusion, as suggested by Indech and Hagelstein.
Regarding claim 2, Indech in view of Groeneweg, Hagelstein, and, if necessary, Irvine, teaches the method of claim 1. Groeneweg teaches a source of the EM radiation may generate EM radiation having a wavelength of 100 nm (i.e., 0.1 microns) to 10 microns (4:8-13), which is the same as the claimed range of from about 10 microns to about 0.1 micron. Thus, Indech, modified to include the step of transmitting EM radiation as taught by Groeneweg, the step of coating the tubular electrode as taught by Groeneweg and Hagelstein, and, if necessary, the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would have resulted in the features of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Indech in view of Groeneweg, Hagelstein, and, if necessary, Irvine, teaches the method of claim 1. Indech discloses allegedly substantially offsetting or reducing, based on the electron screening, the effect of the Coulomb barrier between nuclei of the light element atoms ([0011]-[0012], [0017], [0023], [0033], [0045], [0057]). Additionally, as discussed above, and as best understood by Examiner in view of the disclosure and Applicant’s remarks, the feature of “substantially offsetting or reducing, based on the electron screening, the effect of the Coulomb barrier between nuclei of the light element atoms” allegedly occurs as a result of transmitting the EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure ([0052], [0063]-[0066], [0077], [0100]). The modified Indech’s method includes a step of transmitting EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure (see Indech, [0057]; see also Groeneweg, 1:33-2:36, 2:14-36, 4:4-27, 7:31-35, 8:12-28, 10:19-11:25). Therefore, if the invention of claim 3 is capable of achieving the alleged intended result of offsetting or reducing the effect of the Coulomb barrier based on the electron screening, it would appear that the modified Indech’s method would also allegedly be capable of achieving these intended results.
Regarding claim 4, Indech in view of Groeneweg, Hagelstein, and, if necessary, Irvine, teaches the method of claim 3. Indech discloses inducing a fusion reaction between nuclei of at least a portion of the light elements ([0001], [0057]) and Irvine teaches the movement of the free electrons creates an electric field greater than about 108 volts/meter at a location proximate to the two localized regions and provides localized compression by ponderomotive forces (p. 013815-4: “at ESP=2.7 x 1011 V/m ... the effective pondermotive force acts on a few hundred nanometer spatial scale”; p. 013815-5: “If ... ESP is large (>1011 V/m), the electrons are pushed out of the field ... [and] significant transferral of energy from ponderomotive potential to kinetic occurs”). Thus, Indech, modified to include the step of transmitting EM radiation as taught by Groeneweg, the step of coating the tubular electrode as taught by Groeneweg and Hagelstein, and, if necessary, the electron oscillation taught by Hagelstein and Irvine, would have resulted in the features of claim 4. Additionally, as discussed above, and as best understood by Examiner in view of the disclosure and Applicant’s remarks, the features of “creating an electric field” and “providing localized compression by ponderomotive forces that induces a fusion reaction between nuclei of at least a portion of the light atoms” allegedly occurs as a result of transmitting the EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure ([0043]-[0044], [0049], [0052], [0063]-[0066], [0077], [0100]). The modified Indech’s method includes a step of transmitting EM radiation to the electrically conductive base structure (see Indech, [0057]; see also Groeneweg, 1:33-2:36, 2:14-36, 4:4-27, 7:31-35, 8:12-28, 10:19-11:25). Therefore, if the invention of claim 4 is capable of achieving the alleged intended result of providing localized compression and inducing fusion reactions, it would appear that the modified Indech’s method would also allegedly be capable of achieving these intended results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant appears to assert that the claimed invention is not directed towards cold fusion (Remarks, pp. 5-6). However, in doing so, Applicant attempts to distinguish the present invention from thermonuclear fusion, stating that the claims recite “offsetting or reducing the effect of the Coulomb barrier based on that [electron] screening” and “[a] prima facie case that measures a screening-based mechanism against a thermal, Lawson-type benchmark evaluates the invention against a physical basis it does not employ” (Remarks, pp. 5-6). As discussed above, 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, 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 take place at or near room temperature by enhancing electron screening to reduce or eliminate the Coulomb barrier ([0050], [0062]-[0063], [0066], [0079]) and explicitly acknowledges “[t]he claimed method does not rely on bulk thermal energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier” (Remarks, p. 5). 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 (room or ambient temperatures) 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 ([0050]), but Applicant also does not provide any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required to initiate fusion reactions. Thus, Applicant’s invention is further incapable of creating the conditions required for fusion and is therefore incapable of producing or sustaining fusion reactions, thermonuclear or cold.
Applicant further argues “[t]he applied art supports rather than undermines the credibility of [the claimed] mechanism” and “[p]henomena taught by a reference the Office Action itself treats as prior art cannot be simultaneously characterized as an inherently unbelievable undertaking or as resting on implausible scientific principles” (Remarks, p. 7; see also Remarks, p. 8). However, as stated in MPEP 2121: “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). While Examiner has shown that the claimed invention is obvious over the prior art, the prior art does not enable the claimed inventions for the reasons set forth in the prior Office actions and above.
Applicant argues “[t]he claims are not the open-ended claims the Office Action describes” (Remarks, p. 8). 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 room or ambient temperatures ([0050]) which are significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, as discussed above. As previously discussed and as acknowledged by Applicant, 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 “[t]he specification provides extensive structural and operational guidance,” including “a complete operating example with a palladium electrode coated with a thin layer of gold, a hydrogen-1 and deuterium fuel mixture, and a loading density of 1 x 1022 per cubic centimeter, [0087]” (Remarks, p. 9). However, there is nothing in the disclosure to suggest that the asserted “operating example” is in fact “operati[onal]” or is capable of achieving the alleged enhanced electron screening, offsetting or reducing of the Coulomb barrier, or fusion reactions. The publication at paragraph [0087] merely states in full: “The embodiment of example 1, has the electrodes made from palladium, and are coated with a thin layer of gold. The fusion fuel is a 50:50 mixture of hydrogen-1 and deuterium, and loaded to a particle density of 1022-/cc.” This does not provide a demonstration of successful cold fusion or practical energy output via fusion reactions and there is no disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinary skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction at temperatures significantly lower than those known to be required at the scale needed to currently achieve the alleged benefits. There is no independent experimental results or other persuasive evidence provided for the record supporting the conclusion that the present invention is capable of initiating and sustaining net energy, cold fusion reactions. Additionally, as discussed in the prior Office action and above, Applicant repeatedly acknowledges that the theoretical nature of the invention ([0049]-[0050], [0052], [0059], [0066], [0069], [0077]-[0078], [0083]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it unlikely that the asserted outcomes are the result of nuclear fusion by enhanced electron screening and there is no evidence that the disclosed examples have been reliably reproduced or enjoy mainstream support.
Applicant argues the movement of the electrons “are functional limitations that further define the recited method and are entitled to patentable weight” (Remarks, p. 10). However, immediately following, Applicant acknowledges “[t]hey describe the physical consequence of the positively recited transmitting and coating steps acting on the recited structure” (Remarks, p. 10). In other words, consistent with the specification, the features of the electron movement are a “consequence” (i.e., a result, outcome, effect) of “transmitting electromagnetic (EM) radiation” and “coating the tubular electrode.” As discussed above, the skilled artisan would be unable to determine how the “physical consequence[s]” of the electron motion, electron screening, Coulomb barrier reduction, localized compression, and fusion reaction could be achieved as a result of the “positively recited transmitting and coating steps.” The claims are therefore indefinite as they do not recite sufficient structures, materials, or steps for accomplishing the claimed intended results and appear to be incomplete, rendering the boundaries of the claims unclear.
Regarding the remaining 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues the claims are not indefinite because “[c]laims are to be read as a whole and in light of the specification” (Remarks, p. 11). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additional References
The following reference(s) would also appear to be applicable to Applicant’s invention and are therefore cited in the attached PTO-892:
US Publication No. 2019/0045617: discloses transmitting EM radiation to an electrically conductive base structure comprising a tubular electrode loaded with light element atoms and having a tapering section defining a tip at an end of the tubular electrode, receiving the EM radiation at the tip of the tubular electrode, and, in response to the EM radiation, oscillation of free electrons along the tubular electrode (Abstract), but has an effective filing date after the effective filing date of the present application.
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
3 Berlinguette, Curtis P., et al. “Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion.” Nature 570.7759 (2019): 45-51.
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature
5 https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition
6 https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif
7 https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st
8 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7
9 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a/full/
10 https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal
11 Cruz, J., et al. "Electron screening effects in nuclear reactions: still an unsolved problem." Journal of Physics: Conference Series. Vol. 337. No. 1. IOP Publishing, 2012.
12 Vesic, J., et al. "Influence of electronic environment on nuclear reaction rates." The European Physical Journal A 50.10 (2014): 153.
Prosecution Insights