DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The request for continued examination (RCE) filed 16 September 2026 has been entered. All amendments therein have been entered.
Initial Comments
The PTAB rendered a decision dated 20 August 2026.
Claims 21-30 and 42-46 are now pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, second paragraph
Claims 21-30 and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21
The phrase “destruction of the core” is unclear. The dividing boundary between “destruction” and “non-destruction” is undefined and unknown. It is unclear what constitutes a destroyed core. The dividing boundary between a “destroyed core” and a “non-destroyed core” is undefined and unknown. The phrase “destruction of the core” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. Thus, the claim does not allow the skilled artisan to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement.
Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, first paragraph
Claims 21-30 and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement and the written description 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.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated 14 November 2025 and the Office Action dated 28 March 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 21-30 and 42-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated 14 November 2025 and the Office Action dated 28 March 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-23 and 25-27 as best understood, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hagelstein (US 2007/0286324) in combination with Swartz (US 2001/0019594).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated 14 November 2025 and the Office Action dated 28 March 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hagelstein and Swartz as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Waisman (US 2003/0053579).
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated 14 November 2025 and the Office Action dated 28 March 2025 are herein incorporated by reference.
Additional Comments
The PTAB rendered a decision on 20 August 2026. The decision at pages 6-7 states:
As best understood, the present invention allegedly provides a solution to the problems associated with “conventional” cold fusion and includes a proposed solution that prevents the rapid destruction of device cores and yields an economically viable source of energy due to the operation of the core for extended lengths of time.
Based on these disclosures, Appellant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the phrase "substantially avoids destruction of the core" to mean that the core's operational integrity is maintained over extended periods (as distinguished from the rapid or catastrophic destruction described in conventional art), while allowing for ordinary wear and tear to the core (i.e., minor, non-destructive wear or degradation that does not compromise the core's functioning).
Additionally, the Appellant submits that "the term ‘substantially’ was added to clarify that the phrase does not prohibit any and every kind of 'destruction,' no matter how minor or trivial."
Appellant's argument fails because it assumes one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of: (1) maintaining the core's operational integrity over extended periods; and (2) ordinary wear and tear to the core. Both "extended periods of time" and "ordinary wear and tear" are relative terms that must be based on a comparison to some standard to be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, it is unclear what standard should be used for the comparison. For example, it is unclear if the standard for the comparison should be based on a process that does not include a rapid destruction of the core as occurs in conventional systems (see Spec., 4), a process that generates an economically viable source of energy (see id. , 13), or something else.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 21 and dependent claims 22-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
Although the above remarks were based on the prior wording “substantially avoiding destruction of the core”, the Examiner asserts that they likewise apply to the current wording “avoiding destruction of the core”. The current wording still (incorrectly) assumes one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand the meaning of: (1) maintaining the core's operational integrity over extended periods; and (2) ordinary wear and tear to the core. Thus, the claim phrase “destruction of the core” is indefinite for reasons already explained by the PTAB.
Furthermore, Applicant stated (in Reply Brief at page 9) that the term “substantially” was added to clarify that the phrase (“destruction of the core”) does not prohibit any and every kind of destruction, no matter how minor or trivial. That is, Applicant’s stated intention is for the phrase “destruction of the core” to be defined to ban some forms of core destruction while allowing other forms of core destruction. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which forms of core destruction (which apparently includes partial core destruction) are allowed by the claim phrase “destruction of the core”. The level or degree of destruction that would satisfy the recited “destruction of the core” is unknown. It follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Thus, the claim phrase “destruction of the core” is further indefinite for these additional reasons.
There is also the issue of the state of the core when “destruction” is actually obtained. If it is when the core no longer generates an economically viable source of energy, then the current operator would need to know Applicant’s (and not their own) definition of “economically viable source of energy”. The current operator would also need to know whether “destruction of the core” allows for the destruction of a single cell in a lattice of many cells, or half of the cells physically destroyed, or a complete destruction of all cells (i.e., the entire core).
The skilled artisan would also need to know whether “destruction of the core” means physical destruction, operational destruction, or both. For example, “destruction of the core” could be interpreted to allow for operational ability to generate heat after an occurrence of physical core destruction (i.e., where the core is not completely destroyed). Alternatively, “destruction of the core” could be interpreted as an operational inability to generate heat even though the core is not completely destroyed. Lastly, “destruction of the core” could be interpreted as an operational inability to generate heat and the core is completely destroyed. Since the phrase “destruction of the core” can be interpreted differently, it is prima facie indefinite. The skilled artisan would interpret a completely destroyed core as one being not useful for any purpose, but what constitutes the recited “destruction of the core” would be unknown.
Applicant states (Remarks at page 6) that the PTAB decision “reversed all rejections in the Office Action except for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph”. However, the PTAB decision indicates that the meaning of the appealed claims was so unclear that any rejection based on prior art would need to rely on a (improper) speculative assumption for the meaning of the claims. As a result, even though the rejections based on prior art were not considered, they were deemed reversed. The reversal was not based on the thrust of the rejections being invalid, but because the claims couldn’t be accurately understood in order to reject on any prior art.
Further Comments
Claims 28-30 and 42-46 are not rejected based on prior art.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
