DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claim 1 is directed to a power system that generates at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising, inter alia,
“reactants capable of undergoing a reaction that produces enough energy to form a plasma in the vessel comprising:
a) a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, and
b) a molten metal…;
at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power or ignition current to supply electrical power to the at least one stream of molten metal to ignite the reaction when the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas and/or water vapor are flowing into the vessel…;
a power converter or output system to convert a portion of the energy produced from the reaction to electrical power….”
Claim 20 is directed to “[a] system for producing a plasma” comprising, inter alia:
“a) a molten metal injector system configured to produce a stream of molten metal from a metal reservoir;
b) an electrode system for inducing a current to flow through said stream of molten metal;
c) a water injection system configured to bring a metered volume of water in contact with the molten metal, wherein a portion of said water and a portion of said molten metal react to form an oxide of said metal and hydrogen gas…; wherein said plasma is produced when current is supplied through said metal stream.”
Per MPEP 2107.01 (II), an invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of the patent law. See, e.g., Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581, 11 USPQ2d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989, 156 USPQ 673, 676 (CCPA 1968). See also In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“the PTO is entitled to reject an application for insufficient proof when a device by its nature occasions reasonable skepticism as to its operativeness under §101”).
Further, per MPEP 2107.01(IV), to properly reject a claimed invention under 35 USC 101, the Office must (A) make a prima facie showing that the claimed invention lacks utility, and (B) provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for factual assumptions relied upon in establishing the prima facie showing. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements:
(A) An explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible;
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and
(C) An evaluation of all relevant evidence of record, including utilities taught in the closest prior art.
Reasoning that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible
Per MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Regarding utility, “[a]s a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of §101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is a reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope” In re Langer, 503 F.2d at 1391, 183 USPQ at 297. Per MPEP 2107.02 (iii)(A), to overcome the presumption of truth that an assertion of utility by the applicant enjoys, the Office must establish that it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in the art would doubt (i.e., “question”) the truth of the statement of utility….This means that if the applicant has presented facts that support the reasoning used in asserting a utility, Office personnel must present countervailing facts and reasoning sufficient to establish that a person of ordinary skill would not believe the applicant’s assertion of utility. In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The initial evidentiary standard used during evaluation of this question is a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the totality of facts and reasoning suggest that it is more likely than not that the statement of the applicant is false).
In this case, the abstract teaches the invention is directed to a power generator that “provides at least one of electrical and thermal power comprising (i) at least one reaction cell for reactions involving atomic hydrogen products identifiable by unique analytical and spectroscopic signatures, (ii) a molten metal injection system comprising at least one pump such as an electromagnetic pump that provides a molten metal stream to the reaction cell and at least one reservoir that receives the molten metal stream, and (iii) an ignition system comprising an electrical power source that provides low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to the at least one steam of molten metal to ignite a plasma to initiate rapid kinetics of the reaction and an energy gain. In some embodiments, the power generator may comprise: (v) a source of H2 and O2 supplied to the plasma, (vi) a molten metal recovery system, and (vii) a power converter capable of (a) converting the high-power light output from a blackbody radiator of the cell into electricity….”
More specifically, the specification teaches the power generator comprises a “cell for making hydrinos [that] may take the form of a liquid-fuel cell, a solid-fuel cell, a heterogeneous-fuel cell, a CIHT cell, and an SF-CIHT or SunCell® cell. Each of these cells comprises: (i) reactants including a source of atomic hydrogen; (ii) at least one catalyst chosen from a solid catalyst, a molten catalyst, a liquid catalyst, a gaseous catalyst, or mixtures thereof for making hydrinos; and (iii) a vessel for reacting hydrogen and the catalyst for making hydrinos”(¶[0271]).
The published specification further teaches “hydrinos” are “lower-energy hydrogen species” (¶[0168]-¶[0170] & ¶[0174]) or “lower-energy-state hydrogen atoms”, a detailed theory of which is given in the specification ¶[0200]-¶[0220] & ¶[0231]-¶[0268]. Briefly---in contrast to standard quantum mechanics (QM) equations for the binding energy En for excited states of the hydrogen atom where the parameter “n” representing the principal quantum number “n” is an integer per equation (11)---hydrinos are defined as hydrogen atoms comprising fractional numbers for n, or fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen given by equations (10) & (12) (¶[0200]; ¶[0206]; ¶[0222]; ¶[0231]). They can be reacted with the catalyst/s to provide a reaction with a net enthalpy (i.e., energy), e.g., of m · 27.2 eV where m is an integer (¶[0206]; ¶[0220]-¶[0230]).
Various “reactants” (also called “hydrino reactants”) form “hydrino reaction mixtures” which include H sources and HOH sources (¶[0287]), oxygen, water vapor, or hydrogen (¶[0311]); H2O, H2 and O2 (¶[0328]); and a molten metal, a metal oxide, and hydrogen (¶[0400]).
These reactants are “ignited to form hydrinos with a high release of energy in the form of at least one of thermal, plasma, and electromagnetic (light) power” (¶[0287]-¶[0288]). “Ignition” means initiation of a reaction of the reactants by means of a current that flows through an injected molten metal (¶[0021], ¶[0026]; ¶[0193]). The reaction produces hydrinos in the form of energy such as a plasma (sometimes referred to as a “hydrino plasma”; ¶[0193]; ¶[0269]-¶[0271]; ¶[0288]; ¶[0305]; ¶[0432]; ¶[0622]). The ignition current may be interrupted following ignition in order to optimize the output hydrino generated energy relative to the input ignition energy (¶[0294]).
A specific example of a cell such as a SunCell® is shown in Figs.2&9 and described in ¶[0305]-¶[0308], ¶[0328]-¶[0029] & ¶[0330]. In the language of claim 1, it comprises a “vessel [5b31]…;
reactants [i.e., hydrino reactants] capable of undergoing a reaction that produces enough energy to form a plasma in the vessel comprising:
a) a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas…(¶[0311]; ¶[0329]);
b) a molten metal [e.g., molten silver]…and molten metal injector system [EM pump injector 5k1[a] and 5k61 with electrodes]…, [and]
at least one ignition system [i.e., source of electrical power 2]…to ignite the reaction when the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas and/or water vapor are flowing into the vessel” (i.e., “current flows through the injected molten metal streams to ignite plasma when the streams connect”; ¶[0305]).
PNG
media_image1.png
548
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
544
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As noted, the specification ¶[0271] teaches the power generator including the disclosed SunCell ® comprises a “cell for making hydrinos”. The power generator of claim 1 is thus understood to refer to a system that produces power from hydrinos. That is, by reacting (via ignition) the claimed “mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas” with a “molten metal” in a vessel to make hydrinos, the power system produces a plasma (i.e., a “hydrino plasma”) from which energy is derived.
Similarly, with respect to claim 20, the claimed “system for producing a plasma” when “a portion of said water and a portion of said molten metal react to form an oxide of said metal and hydrogen gas…” [sic] is understood to refer to a system for producing a plasma from hydrinos. That is, by reacting various “hydrino reaction mixtures” described in e.g., ¶[0311], ¶[0328]-¶[0329] & ¶[0400], hydrinos are produced which in turn produce and maintain a plasma (i.e., “hydrino plasma”).
Thus, claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 and 20-21 implicitly include hydrinos in that they are intrinsic to the reaction that forms the plasma. Put another way, hydrinos are necessary for the claimed systems to generate power and/or a plasma.
But, the existence of such hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. Specifically, atomic hydrogen with fractional quantum numbers (n) in the equation for the binding energy En represent energy states lower than those allowed by established theory and confirmed by experiment. Established classical quantum theory requires the quantum number “n” to be an integer per equation (11). The lowest energy state of hydrogen (i.e., ground state) corresponds to n = 1. Classical quantum theory specifically excludes fractional quantum numbers since this implies hydrogen energy states below the ground state. The invention as claimed is therefore inoperative and lacks a credible utility since it requires fractional quantum numbers which in turn imply the existence of something that established science does support and explicitly rejects---i.e., energy states of hydrogen lower than the ground state predicted and confirmed by established science. Indeed, the asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos with fractional quantum numbers could only be true if it violated these fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion
In quantum mechanics (QM), the Schrödinger equation, the auxiliary restrictions upon the wave function Ψ, and the interpretation of the wave function are fundamental postulates that provide the fundamental description of atomic spectra and periodicities found in the table of chemical elements1, 2. In particular, the hydrogen atom is a two-body problem consisting of an electron and a proton, and so it can be solved exactly. The Schrödinger equation was the first equation to successfully produce the experimental result for the observed energy levels of hydrogen from a basic equation of motion for the electron3. In the Schrödinger equation, the lowest value the principal quantum number “n” may take is the integer 1. This is referred to as the “ground state” of hydrogen and corresponds to a Bohr radius for the electron of 0.528 x 10-10 m. In the ground state, with n = 1, the electron has an energy Eo of -13.6 eV, or a Rydberg of energy (ER), equivalent to the ionization energy of hydrogen. The integer values for n result from the bound-state solutions to the spherically symmetric solution to the wave equation for hydrogen (Eq.19.7), so that instead of an infinite series, a finite polynomial results.4 Thus, the Schrödinger equation does not predict a hydrogen binding energy greater than 13.6 eV, in absolute terms. As summarized by Feynman, “[t]he Schrödinger equation has been one of the great triumphs of physics. By providing the key to the underlying machinery of atomic structure it has given an explanation for atomic spectra, for chemistry, and for the nature of matter.”
In Chap.5 of “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Pauling et al. present the Schrödinger equation for the radial wavefunction of the hydrogen atom Eq.(18-29) and explain mathematically how boundary conditions result in the allowed values for the total quantum number n to be an integer greater than or equal to one (pp.121-125). See also Bethe et al., “Quantum Mechanics of One and two-Electron Atoms” (Cornell University, 1977, pp.3-25.
In a later paper, with specific reference to applicant’s hydrino theory, the physicist Aaron Barth (“Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001) examines the applicant’s claims of hydrinos as set forth in his thousand-page book on the topic (presumably, his grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (“GUT”) incorporated by reference into the current application; see ¶[0200], ¶[0240] & ¶[0679]). Barth outlines the traditional quantum theory of the hydrogen atom, as modeled by Bohr and Schrödinger, and contrasts this with Mills’ theory. Barth notes Mills’ disagreement with the fundamental premises of quantum theory and how Mills instead replaces the Schrödinger equation with a wave equation having solutions representing “traveling waves”---something entirely different from solutions to the Schrödinger equation---without terms describing the electromagnetic force and without “bound-state” solutions representing an electron physically attached to an atom.5 Barth also notes that Mills’ wave equation doesn’t contain Planck’s constant that sets the overall scale of the quantization energy levels of the atom, and so Mills’ model can’t correctly predict the energy levels of hydrogen6. Barth notes Mills’ strange conclusion that the electron is confined to an infinitely thin spherical shell around the atom’s nucleus called the “orbitsphere” and that this is inconsistent with experimental data. Barth says that Mills “artificially graft[s] the Bohr model onto his theory in a way that is mathematically nonsensical” and that “[n]o matter what radius is chosen, the fact remains that this orbitsphere model is inconsistent with the wave equation” and he notes Mills’ hydrino model “isn’t a logical consequence of the wave equation, or of any other basic equation of motion for the electron…[and] doesn’t even rise to the level of a legitimate physical theory that one might potentially test by experiment, since it’s not mathematically coherent or self-consistent.”7 After debunking alleged astrophysical evidence for hydrinos in emission lines from flare stars and far-infra-red data from the Cosmic Background Explorer spacecraft, Barth concludes:
PNG
media_image3.png
276
520
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
115
514
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
718
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Barth is not the only physicist to express skepticism of hydrinos. A.Rathke (“A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127) notes severe mathematical inconsistencies in the model of the hydrogen atom upon which the theory (and, hence, the invention) is based and the incompatibility of hydrino states with standard QM. Rathke notes applicant’s “grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics” (CQM) predicting the existence of hydrinos proposes a classical wave equation for the electron’s charge-density function that is not Lorentz invariant for any other phase velocity than the speed of light, and so is at best the non-relativistic limit of a broader theory.8 Rathke explains in detail how the equation for non-zero orbital angular momentum (6) in applicant’s model is not solution of the wave equation (1) and thus fails to describe electron motion in a hydrogen atom with non-minimal angular momentum. In contrast, Rathke notes that electron states with non-zero angular momentum are well-described in standard quantum mechanics.9 Rathke also explains in detail how applicant’s model fails to provide a solution to the radial part of the wave equation for any orbital radius, and that there is no basis for deriving the existence of hydrinos from applicant’s wave equation.10 Rathke’s analysis “demonstrates that the theory is mathematically inconsistent in several points: the quantization condition of CQM allows only a solution for the ground state of the hydrogen atom; the radial solutions for the charge density function of the electron, as well as the angular solutions with non-zero angular momentum, differ from those given in the literature on CQM…[and] there is no way to cure the flaws of the theory by adding physical assumptions. CQM is obviously inconsistent, and in particular does not contain solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos.”
Rathke also considers whether standard QM allows for the existence of hydrinos and concludes that while solutions of the Schrödinger equation for n < 1 exist, they are not square integrable, and that “[t]his does not only violate one of the axioms of quantum mechanics, but in practical terms prohibits that these solutions can in any way describe the probability density of a particle. Thus solutions with n < 1 are meaningless in standard quantum theory and the existence of hydrinos as a solution of the Schrödinger equation for a classical Coulomb potential is excluded.” 11 Rathke also notes that the applicant’s experimental results would be more properly understood “if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.”
Similarly, A. de Castro in “Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics”, Physics Letters A, Volume 369, Issues 5–6, pp.380-383 (2007)
notes that square integrability excludes singular wave functions in the Schrödinger equation for the non-relativistic case and provides further analysis of the relativistic case as modeled by the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. De Castro finds that even for these, the orthogonality criterion shows that anomalous bound-state solutions do not exist, because it “imposes additional constraints in such a way that the would-be relativistic square-integrable solutions for hydrino states, related to the thin lines in Fig.1 and Fig.2, are not acceptable, and only radial solutions behaving at the origin as r -1/2+ε, with ε > 0 for the Klein-Gordon case, and r -1+e for the Dirac case, are physically acceptable solutions” (abstract; p.6).
Domby in “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A, Vol.360, Issue 1, pp.62-65 (2006) discusses hydrino solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation for the Coulomb potential in three dimensions and the Dirac equation for the Coulomb potential in two dimensions. He shows these solutions are unphysical in spite of having normalisable wave functions because: 1) they lack non-relativistic counterparts even for arbitrarily small coupling; 2) the states persist even when coupling is turned off; and 3) the strength of the binding increases as the coupling strength α decreases, so the maximum binding occurs for α = 0 when the potential has disappeared completely. Further, Domby demonstrates that if the point charge of the nucleus is replaced by a charge extending over an arbitrarily small by finite radius R, then the anomalous functions become unacceptable because for small enough R they cease to satisfy the appropriate wave equation. He concludes that “[o]utside of science fiction this is sufficient reason to disregard them.”12
Khelashvili et al. in "Dirac reduced radial equations and the problem of additional solutions" International Journal of Modern Physics E, Vol 26,1750043 (2017) discusses so-called “additional solutions” in the problem of hydrogen-like atoms (also known as “hydrino” energy states) and concludes that two- and three-dimension solutions “…do not satisfy…fundamental physical principles and their existence is not possible” (p.15).
Kunze (“On the spectroscopic measurements used to support postulates of states with fractional principle quantum numbers in hydrogen", Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 41 (2008) 10800) critiques the discussion of the Schrodinger and Dirac equations and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle put forth by the inventor and his group in support of their hydrino theory and notes that “it becomes evident that fundamental ideas of quantum mechanics are simply pushed aside.” Kunze also notes spectrometers used in some experiments of the inventor and his group cannot measure spectra below 30 nm and therefore that some measurements cited in support of hydrinos are clearly nothing else by artefacts.
More recently, in several papers Phelps notes experiments conducted by Phillips et al. have not made convincing calorimetric tests of the model of energy generation by Mills” (abstract) 13 and the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu can be explained in terms of conventional physics and does not support the hydrino hypothesis (abstract; p.3).14 Citing Phelps, Petrovic notes "[t]he failure of our Hα broadening experiments to support the interpretations of various discharge experiments and their use to support the energy generation and “hydrino” model of Mills…has been outlined.” 15 Bagci examines adaptation of Slater type Orbitals for complete orthonormal basis sets for atoms and their generalization to non-integer quantum numbers (abstract).16 On p.21 Bagci notes that “[t]he case of hydrogen for less than 1 requires caution. A direct consequence of fractional principal quantum number could be spectral evidence (in the far UV) for a lower electronic state of e.g., hydrogen (below −13.6 eV). Spectra consistent with this were observed by Mills, leading to a number of papers, as well as excitement and investment in hypothetical energy sources. The hydrino was coined to name such atoms with shrunken orbitals and reaction products, like helium-ions, hydride-ions and even H2 were found. Unfortunately, it has not been proven to our knowledge that these came from fractional n hydrinos. Sometime later, there were even theoretical objections raised. Present status is that we still await direct experimental proof of hydrinos and must consider this example as 'what would be expected from a fractional hydrogen atom electronic state'. Even the far UV spectra may have been mis-interpreted.”
Thus, Pauling et al., Feynman et al., Bethe et al., Barth, Rathke, de Castro, Domby and Khelashvili et al., Kunze, Phelps, Petrovic and Bagci are at least twelve independent, expert sources demonstrating implicitly or explicitly that the existence of hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry. This alone would occasion reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Also, the most recent assessment by Bagci that direct experimental proof of hydrinos still does not exist and that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been miss-interpreted demonstrates at the very least that hydrino theory is not accepted by the contemporary scientific community. Further, the asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated these fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
Reference is also made to the Office’s findings in three of applicant’s earlier US applications directed to hydrino technology: SN 08/467,911, SN 12/153,613 & SN 12/213,476. In the first, the USPTO Board of Appeals & Interferences upheld rejections of claim 58 under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC ̠§ 112, first paragraph, directed to “[a] hydrino atom comprising: a hydrogen atom having an electron in a lower ground state energy level.” In the second, in the Appendix and Endnotes on pp.8-17 of the 28 February 2011 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of deficiencies in applicant’s grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (“GUT”) forming the theoretical basis for his underlying hydrino technology and incorporated by reference into the current application (see ¶[0338], ¶[0442] & ¶[0988]). In the third, in Appendices (A)-(C) on pp.22-34 of the 24 August 2010 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of further deficiencies of the hydrino hypothesis.
In summary, according to the teaching of ¶[0271] and other paragraphs of specification noted above, the power generator of claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 and the system for producing a plasma of claims 20-21 implicitly include hydrinos in order to produce power and/or a plasma. But, hydrinos are contrary to established science. Production of power and/or plasma from hydrinos could only be true if it violated fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. Therefore, the claimed invention lacks credible utility.
Evaluation of all relevant evidence of record
It is noted the closest prior art of record is US Pat.10,753,275 (corresponding to US Pat.Pub.20160290223 submitted in the IDS filed 25 June 2021) which teaches a mechanical power system (in contrast to the electric and thermal power generator of the instant application) comprising “a) at least one source of nascent H2O; b) at least one source of atomic hydrogen; c) at least one of a conductor and a conductive matrix…and at last two electrodes that confine and connected to the high current source configured to conduct a high current through the fuel” (claim 1). This patent is to same inventor as the current application. Therefore, it cannot be considered an objective, independent source of information regarding hydrinos and the credibility of the utility of the claimed power generator and plasma source using hydrinos.
In the Response filed 16 January 2025, Applicant cites a number of additional references as support for utility which are evaluated below. They are insufficient to establish credible utility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 & 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Per MPEP 2107.01 (IV), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph incorporates by reference the factual basis and conclusions set forth in the 35 USC 101 utility rejection. Because that rejection determined the invention as claimed does not have utility, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed, and as such, the claim is defective under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. As explained, the invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility since it is based upon the creation and use of “hydrinos” with energy ground states lower than ordinary hydrogen and fractional principal quantum numbers that are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. Though hydrinos are not explicitly recited, they are implicit since the specification teaches the power generator and plasma producer include a cell “for making hydrinos”, e.g., a SunCell® cell, where “each of these cells comprises: (i) reactants including a source of atomic hydrogen; (ii) at least one catalyst chosen from a solid catalyst, a molten catalyst, a liquid catalyst, a gaseous catalyst, or mixtures thereof for making hydrinos; and (iii) a vessel for reacting hydrogen and the catalyst for making hydrinos” (¶[0271]).
This description along with other descriptions in the specification (e.g., ¶[0311], ¶[0328]-¶[0329] & ¶[0400]) of hydrinos producing and maintaining a plasma (i.e., a “hydrino plasma”) suggest hydrinos cause the “reaction” of the “reactants” forming the plasma which outputs electrical and/or thermal power in the system of claims 1 and 20.
Also, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, claim 1 is directed to a power system that generates at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising, inter alia, “reactants capable of undergoing a reaction that produces enough energy to form a plasma in the vessel comprising: a) a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas…; [and] at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power or ignition current to supply electrical power to the at least one stream of molten metal to ignite the reaction when the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas and/or water vapor are flowing into the vessel…” and claim 20 is directed to “[a] system for producing a plasma” comprising, inter alia: “b) an electrode system for inducing a current to flow through said stream of molten metal; c) a water injection system configured to bring a metered volume of water in contact with the molten metal, wherein a portion of said water and a portion of said molten metal react to form an oxide of said metal and hydrogen gas…; wherein said plasma is produced when current is supplied through said metal stream.” Since these systems utilize hydrino “reactions” to generate power or produce plasma, the claims implicitly include hydrinos.
But, hydrinos do not exist, nor can they be produced, and therefore the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to make them and use the invention as claimed to produce electrical and/or thermal power.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), the factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation, as set forth by in re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include:
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary,
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification,
(3) The presence or absence of working examples,
(4) The nature of the invention
(5) The state of the prior art,
(6) The relative skill of those in the art,
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
(8) The breadth of the claims.
Each of these factors will be addressed as to their relevance to the lack of enablement of the present claims.
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary
Claim 1 recites “a power system that generates at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising…reactants capable of undergoing a reaction that produces enough energy to form a plasma in the vessel comprising: a) a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas…; at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power or ignition current to supply electrical power to the at least one stream of molten metal to ignite the reaction when the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas and/or water vapor are flowing into the vessel…. [and] a power converter…to convert a portion of the energy produces from the reaction to electrical power….” Claim 20 is directed to “[a] system for producing a plasma comprising….b) an electrode system for inducing a current to flow through said stream of molten metal; c) a water injection system configured to bring a metered volume of water in contact with molten metal, wherein a portion of said water and a portion of said molten metal react to form an oxide of said metal and hydrogen gas…; wherein said plasma is produced when current is supplied through said metal stream.”
The specification teaches the power generator and plasma producer include a cell “for making hydrinos”, e.g., a SunCell® cell, where “each of these cells comprises: (i) reactants including a source of atomic hydrogen; (ii) at least one catalyst chosen from a solid catalyst, a molten catalyst, a liquid catalyst, a gaseous catalyst, or mixtures thereof for making hydrinos; and (iii) a vessel for reacting hydrogen and the catalyst for making hydrinos” (¶[0271]). These “reactants” (also called “hydrino reactants”) including e.g., H, HOH or H2O, are “ignited to form hydrinos with a high release of energy in the form of at least one of thermal, plasma, and electromagnetic (light) power” (¶[0287]-¶[0288]). This description along with other descriptions in the specification (e.g., ¶[0311], ¶[0328]-¶[0329] & ¶[0400]) of hydrinos producing and maintaining a plasma (i.e., a “hydrino plasma”) suggest hydrinos cause the “reaction” of the “reactants” forming the plasma which outputs electrical and/or thermal power in the system of claims 1 and 20. That is, the recitations in claim 1 & 20 are understood to implicitly include hydrinos which are produced when the reactants are “ignited” in a reaction and cause release of energy and subsequent power and/or plasma production.
But, while the specification contains exhaustive descriptions of various cells, the problem is that the fundamental reaction producing the claimed power and/or plasma relies upon hydrinos which are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the scientific literature noted above. This implies an extraordinary quantity of experimentation would be necessary to produce them. Put another way, since the asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated fundamental scientific principles, one of ordinary skill would necessarily need to undertake experiments that falsify contemporary scientific knowledge, and an extraordinary quantity of experimentation would be necessary to do this.
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification
The specification ¶[0200]-¶[0230], in particular equations (10) & (12) and ¶[0222] describe hydrinos as comprising atomic hydrogen exhibiting fractional quantum numbers indicative of lower energy states than those predicted by classical quantum mechanics (where the quantum number is an integer according to equation (11)).
But, such a description is circular and of little guidance, since it presumes the existence of hydrinos which contradict and falsify classical quantum mechanics. While the specification provides no shortage of description, reduction to practice of hydrinos with fractional quantum numbers indicative of lower energy states than those predicted by classical quantum mechanics contradicts established science.
(3) The presence or absence of working examples
The most recent analysis by Bagci that direct experimental proof of hydrinos still does not exist and that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been mis-interpreted suggests no working examples of power generators or plasma systems employing hydrinos according to the claimed inventions currently exist. No working examples of hydrino-based devices producing power and/or plasma by independent, peer-reviewed, third-party research are on record.
According to information from Applicant’s website (https://brilliantlightpower.com/ suncell/ and https://brilliantlightpower.com/demonstrations/) a demonstration of a SunCell ® was given on 04-05 February 2021. But, the relationship between this device and the one in the current claims is unclear. Further, there was no indication that anyone except the inventor and his group were allowed to access, inspect and/or operate the demonstration. Also, the website does not indicate this or any other SunCell® are available for sale or otherwise commercially available. This is not surprising given that established science does not corroborate the underlying theories concerning the hydrino which are alleged to be produced by the device/s.
As noted in the utility rejection above, while the specification allegedly gives examples of conversion of hydrogen to hydrinos through reactions corresponding to, e.g., Equations (10), (11) & (15)-(18) (¶[0206]-¶[0208]), hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore it is unclear that any examples that work according to the alleged hydrino theory actually exist. In US application Ser.No.12/213,476 to applicant directed to similar hydrino technology, the Office determined “there is no evidence which indicates applicant has succeeded in arriving at an operative system, or inventing a working method, that is capable of catalytic…reactions involving hydrogen, which may form novel hydrogen species of reduced atomic radius…” and noted that “[n]one of the licensing companies has ever been able to come up with a viable product” and “[t]he total lack of replication and confirmation by other independent researchers despite the worldwide publications over 19 years (as far back as 1991) is a tacit evidence for, either the invention does not work as claimed, or it is not useful, or both.”17 Further, as noted by the EPO (Written Opinion, Section 5), applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years (see, e.g., US 6,024,935, published 15 February 2000) but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented. In the Response filed 16 January 2025, Applicant does provide videos of a “similar” system (Exhibits A-C)18 but the nexus between this system and the claimed one is unclear.
For these reasons, working examples of the claimed hydrino-based power or plasma generators are not known to exist.
(4) The nature of the invention
The commonly-accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry hold that hydrogen cannot exist below the “ground state” and have fractional value for the principal quantum number n. This is noted in the specification ¶[0200] and equations (10)-(11) describing the classic quantum mechanical model giving closed-form solutions with integer quantum numbers (n). In contrast, Applicant’s invention is based on novel composition of hydrogen called the “hydrino” which exists below the known “ground state” and has fractional values for (n). See, e.g., ¶[0200]-¶[0208] and equations (10) & (12) and the discussion in the rejection under 35 USC §101 above. Thus, the fundamental nature of the present invention is that it consists of a form of hydrogen which cannot exist under the accepted laws of physics. In order to establish enablement, Applicant bears the burden of proving that the accepted scientific laws are wrong or incomplete.
(5) The state of the prior art
US Pat. 9,994,450 to Coyle discloses a hydrino theory similar to that of the present application, except that no catalysts are used within the apparatus and process (see c.6:8-27). US Pat.10,753,275 is arguable the closest prior art since it teaches a mechanical power system (in contrast to the electric and thermal power generator of the instant application) comprising “a) at least one source of nascent H2O; b) at least one source of atomic hydrogen; c) at least one of a conductor and a conductive matrix…and at last two electrodes that confine and connected to the high current source configured to conduct a high current through the fuel” (claim 1). Other patents and publications describing apparatus based on hydrino theory submitted in the 25 June 2021 IDS are to same inventor as the current application. Thus, the prior art of record describing hydrino theory appears limited primarily to the inventor and/or his associates.
(6) The relative skill of those in the art
The relative skill of those in the field of quantum mechanics is extremely high. Note, for example, the highly abstract nature and mathematics in the introductory portions of the texts to Pauling et al., Bethe et al., and Feynman noted above. Further, the level of the mathematical demonstrations by Rathke, De Castro, etc. showing hydrinos do not exist are evidence that analysis of hydrinos involves very high skill. Even though ordinarily the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art 19, given that the invention is directed to states of hydrogen without theoretical or empirical basis and that the cited expert opinion is universally opposed to their existence in nature, it is not seen how even the most expert of those skilled in the art could produce hydrinos as claimed.
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art
Since hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry in that they exhibit fractional principal quantum numbers representing energy levels below the known ground state of hydrogen, it is difficult to envision that one skilled in the art could extrapolate them since they are not predicted by theory and they have they been observed by independent researchers in the past. As noted in (6), the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. Further, as noted above in (3), applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented, and there is no evidence any of the licensees for related technology has succeeded in building a reactor based on such hydrino reactions. The most recent analysis by Bagci that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been mis-interpreted suggests the art is unpredictable in that the data is open to various interpretations. Note also Kunze’s statement that spectral observations carried out by the inventor and his group for certain spectral lines were mis-interpreted.
(8) The breadth of the claims
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a vessel, mass flow controller, vacuum pump, molten metal injector system, and a power converter and is thus fairly narrow. In comparison, claim 20 is broader. The claim recites a molten metal injector system, an electrode and a power supply as parts. The hydrino “reactants” comprise a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.
Summary
Per the preceding Wands factor analysis, because the quantity of experimentation necessary is very large, the specification provides little guidance for making hydrinos, there are no working examples of hydrinos or machines which use them in peer-reviewed scientific literature by independent third party researchers, the nature of the invention is fundamentally at odds with the accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry, the state of the prior art is limited, the unpredictable nature of the invention precludes extrapolation thereof by even the most expert, and the breadth of the claims is broad, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to make them or use the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 September 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive.
A. Rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 & 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility
In response to the rejection for lack of utility, Applicant argues the references cited in support of the rejection are immaterial because “they evaluate no experimental evidence whatsoever [and] do not question the experimental evidence.” Applicant also continues to assert hydrino theory is unclaimed and alleges the Examiner “has admitted that the rejection is deficient” on the basis that the Examiner has not discounted or questioned experimental evidence (Response, p.11-12).
This is not persuasive. The noted references provide support for the conclusion that the existence of hydrinos implicit to the claims is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry and that therefore the credibility of the alleged utility is lacking. See the 27 March 2025 Final Office Action, pp.31-32.
Further, hydrinos are implicit to the claims and necessary for energy generation. Claim 1 recites “reactants capable of undergoing a reaction that produces enough energy to form a plasma in the vessel comprising: a) a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, and b) a molten metal…; at least one ignition system comprising a source of electrical power or ignition current to supply electrical power to the at least one stream of molten metal to ignite the reaction when the hydrogen gas and/or oxygen gas and/or water vapor are flowing into the vessel…; [and] a power converter or output system to convert a portion of the energy produced from the reaction to electrical power….” This refers to the device described in the specification ¶[0271] of a “cell for making hydrinos [that] may take the form of a liquid-fuel cell, a solid-fuel cell, a heterogeneous-fuel cell, a CIHT cell, and an SF-CIHT or SunCell® cell. Each of these cells comprises: (i) reactants including a source of atomic hydrogen; (ii) at least one catalyst chosen from a solid catalyst, a molten catalyst, a liquid catalyst, a gaseous catalyst, or mixtures thereof for making hydrinos; and (iii) a vessel for reacting hydrogen and the catalyst for making hydrinos.” Similarly, with respect to claim 20, the claimed “system for producing a plasma” when “a portion of said water and a portion of said molten metal react to form an oxide of said metal and hydrogen gas…” [sic] refers to a system for producing a plasma from hydrinos. That is, by reacting various “hydrino reaction mixtures” described in e.g., ¶[0311], ¶[0328]-¶[0329] & ¶[0400], hydrinos are produced which in turn produce and maintain a plasma (i.e., “hydrino plasma”) necessary for energy generation. Claims 1-16 and 20-21 thus implicitly include hydrinos in that they are intrinsic to the reaction that forms the plasma. With respect to the issue of credible utility, hydrinos are the “logic” underlying the asserted utility since hydrinos are necessary for the claimed systems to generate power and/or a plasma.
But, the existence of such hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. As noted, atomic hydrogen with fractional quantum numbers represent energy states lower than those allowed by established theory and confirmed by experiment. Established classical quantum theory requires the quantum number “n” to be an integer. Classical quantum theory specifically excludes fractional quantum numbers since this implies hydrogen energy states below the ground state.
The invention as claimed is therefore inoperative and lacks a credible utility since it requires fractional quantum numbers which in turn imply the existence of something that established science does support and explicitly rejects. The asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos with fractional quantum numbers could only be true if it violated these fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
Regarding the allegation that the Examiner “has admitted that the rejection is deficient” because experimental evidence has not been discounted or questioned, it is noted that the Examiner has considered evidence submitted by Applicant in support of his assertion of utility. See the 27 March 2025 Final Office Action, pp.32-39 for a detailed explanation. The evidence fails to overcome the conclusion that the record as a whole demonstrates that one of ordinary skill would not likely consider the asserted utility for the claimed invention to be credible. Per MPEP 2107.02(III)(B), “[a]n assertion is credible unless (A) the logic underlying the assertion is seriously flawed, or (B) the facts upon which the assertion is based are inconsistent with the logic underlying the assertion. Credibility as used in this context refers to the reliability of the statement based on the logic and facts that are offered by the applicant to support the assertion of utility.” The underlying hydrino principle which the specification teaches produces the claimed energy generation is seriously flawed because the underlying hydrino principle contravenes and is wholly inconsistent with established scientific principles and beliefs. Therefore, credibility of the alleged utility is lacking. See p.33 of the 27 March 2025 Final Office Action.
B. Rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 14-16 & 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant argues the Examiner does not meet the burden to conclude lack of enablement because “[t]he specification is replete with examples of experimentally measured test results” (Response, p.14). This is not persuasive. As noted 27 March 2025 Final Office Action, pp.32-39, the experimentally measured test results are not sufficient to establish the asserted utility for the claimed invention is credible. Since the claims fail the utility prong of 35 USC 101, they necessarily lack enablement under 35 USC 112(a). Per MPEP 2164.07(I)(A), “[i]f a claim fails to meet the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is shown to be non-useful or inoperative, then it necessarily fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.” Also, the Federal Circuit has noted, “[o]bviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it.” In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Applicant argues the Examiner has not “‘doubt[ed] the truth or accuracy’ of any experimental evidence” (Response, p.14). This is not persuasive because the Examiner has considered evidence, including experimental evidence, submitted by Applicant in support of his assertion of utility, but it fails to overcome the conclusion that the record as a whole demonstrates that one of ordinary skill would not likely consider the asserted utility for the claimed invention to be credible and therefore the claims fail to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) per MPEP 2164.07(I)(A). See the 27 March 2025 Final Office Action, pp.32-39. Further, Applicant’s assertions concerning the experimental data, e.g., plasma formation, boiling water, spectroscopic lines, supporting utility must be based on and consistent with sound underlying logic. See MPEP 2107.02(III)(B). But, this is not the case with Applicant’s invention because the underlying hydrino principle which the specification teaches produces these effects and which are implicit to the claims contravenes and is wholly inconsistent with established scientific principles and beliefs. Therefore, credibility of the alleged utility is lacking and, as a consequence, the claims fail to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) per MPEP 2164.07(I)(A). See p.33 of the 27 March 2025 Final Office Action.
Conclusion
This case is a continuation. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 BURTON S MULLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2029. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas C Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BURTON S MULLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 L.Pauling et al. “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1985), p.52.
2 R.Feynman et al., “The Feynman Lectures on Physics---Quantum Mechanics” Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading Mass. (1965), p.19-1 & 19-5.
3 Ibid., p.19-1 & 19-5.
4 Ibid., p.2-6, p.19-5.
5 A.Barth, “Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001, p.42.
6 Ibid., p.43.
7 Ibid., p.43.
8 Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127, Eq.1. p.3.
9 Ibid., p.4.
10 Ibid., pp.5-6.
11 Ibid., p.6.
12 N.Dombey, “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A 360, p.62-65 (2006).
13 A.V. Phelps; Comment on “Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in resonant transfer plasmas” [J. Appl. Phys.96, 3095 (2004)] J. Appl. Phys. 98 (6) September 2005.
14 A.V. Phelps et al. "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al." Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 120 (2012).
15 Petrović et al. "Energetic ion, atom, and molecule reactions and excitation in low-current H2 discharges: Spatial distributions of emissions" Phys. Rev. E 80, 016408, 17 July, 2009.
16 Bagci et al. "Complete and orthonormal sets of exponential-type orbitals with non-integer quantum numbers" Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Volume 56, Number 33, 28 July 2023
17 Non-Final Office Action, Ser.No.12/213,476, dated 06 February 2012, pp.7-8, 13 & 16. Cited in 11 May 2021 PTO-892.
18 See pp.18-19 of the 16 January 2025 Response.
19 In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.