DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference characters “5k14” & “5k1a” (Figs.2-3).
In the response filed 23 March 2026, Applicant submitted a pdf file, but the file does not contain any actual drawings showing changes, only a page titled “Drawings” requesting replacement of original drawings pages 2/58 and 3/58 with replacement sheets 2/58 and 3/58.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
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”).
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, claim 1 recites a power generator including: “d) a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products; and
(e) a power adapter configured to convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal and/or electric energy.”
The claim encompasses a power generator, e.g., a SunCell® (Figs.2-3) comprising a driven plasma cell such as a discharge cell such as a glow discharge, microwave discharge, or inductively or capacitively coupled discharge cell (e.g., “reaction cell chamber 5b31; Fig.3; ¶[0307], ¶[0312], ¶[0329] & ¶[0458]).1 The “reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” (¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481]; ¶[0616]; ¶[0638]; ¶[0652]; ¶[0677]). “An exemplary reaction comprises the catalysis H to H(1/17) by H(1/4) wherein H(1/4) may be a reaction product of the catalysis of another H by HOH” (¶[0255]).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Briefly, “hydrinos” are “lower-energy hydrogen species” (¶[0281]) a detailed theory of which is given in the specification ¶[0211]-¶[0233] & ¶[0244]-¶[0281]. 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) (¶[0218]]). They can be reacted with catalysts to provide a reaction with a net enthalpy (i.e., energy), e.g., of m · 27.2 eV (equation 14) where m is an integer (¶[0218]; ¶[0235]-¶[0243]).
As noted, the specification teaches the power generator including the disclosed SunCell® comprises a “cell for making hydrinos”, including “reactors for producing increased binding energy hydrogen species and compounds of the present disclosure, such as dihydrino molecules and hydrino hydride compounds…Such a reactor is hereinafter referred to as a “hydrogen reactor” or “hydrogen cell.” The hydrogen reactor comprises a cell for making hydrinos…” (¶[0283]).
Thus, the power generator of claim 1 wherein “…the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products….” is understood to refer to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” as described in ¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481]; ¶[0616]; ¶[0638]; ¶[0652] & ¶[0677].
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 thus implicitly include hydrinos since they are intrinsic to the reaction that the effluence undergoes to produce a second plasma and reaction products. Put another way, hydrinos are necessary for the effluence to produce at least the second plasma and reaction products as described. Further, since energy from the second plasma is converted and/or transferred into mechanical, thermal and/or electrical energy by the claimed power adapter (e), it follows that hydrinos are responsible for power generation.
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) such as those described in ¶[0255] and 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 Guasave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chmielowski, 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 elements2, 3. 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 electron4. 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 Eoh 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.5 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.6 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 hydrogen7. Barth notes Mills’ strange conclusion that the electron is confined to an infinitely thin spherical shell around the atom’s nucleus called the “orbit sphere” 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 orbit sphere 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.”8 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. 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.9 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.10 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.11 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.” 12 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, 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.”13
Rather than proposing alternate explanations for claims for hydrino detection, Lawler et al. assume the hydrino hypothesis is correct and test it against various laboratory, astro-physical and cosmological studies and come to the conclusion that “[t]he existence of hydrino atoms is incompatible with our understanding of Big Bang Cosmology” and “[h]ydrinos…are inconsistent with laboratory scale high pressure LTE hydrogen plasmas, inconsistent with the stability and structure of stars including the Sun, and inconsistent with the known Universe.” 14
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) 15 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).16 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.” 17 Bagci examines adaptation of Slater type Orbitals for complete orthonormal basis sets for atoms and their generalization to non-integer quantum numbers (abstract).18 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, Lawler et al., Khelashvili et al., Kunze, Phelps, Petrovic and Bagci are at least thirteen 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 mis-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 specification, the power generator of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 implicitly includes hydrinos in order to produce power when effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction. But, hydrinos are contrary to established science. Production of power 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) 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.
Mills US Pat.Pub.2018/0159459, claim 23, recites inter alia “a power system that generates at least one of electrical energy and thermal energy comprising: at least one vessel capable of a maintaining a pressure of below, at, or above atmospheric; reactants, the reactants comprising: a) at least one source of catalyst or a catalyst comprising nascent H.sub.2O…and d) a molten metal; at least one molten metal injection system comprising a molten metal reservoir and an electromagnetic pump; at least one additional reactants injection system…at least one reactants ignition system comprising a source of electrical power to cause the reactants to form at least one of light-emitting plasma and thermal-emitting plasma wherein the source of electrical power receives electrical power from the power converter; a system to recover the molten metal; at least one power converter or output system of at least one of the light and thermal output to electrical power and/or thermal power; wherein the molten metal ignition system comprises: a) at least one set of electrodes to confine the molten metal; and b) a source of electrical power to deliver a short burst of high-current electrical energy sufficient to cause the reactants to react to form plasma…wherein the molten metal ignition system comprises at least one set of electrodes that are separated to form an open circuit, wherein the open circuit is closed by the injection of the molten metal to cause the high current to flow to achieve ignition; wherein the molten metal ignition system current is in the range of 500 A to 50,000 A…., wherein the vessel capable of a maintaining a pressure of below, at, or above atmospheric comprises an inner reaction cell….”
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
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 claimed power generator (e.g. the disclosed SunCell®) comprises a “cell for making hydrinos”, including “reactors for producing increased binding energy hydrogen species and compounds of the present disclosure, such as dihydrino molecules and hydrino hydride compounds….Such a reactor is hereinafter referred to as a “hydrogen reactor” or “hydrogen cell.” The hydrogen reactor comprises a cell for making hydrinos” (¶[0283]). The recitation in claim 1 wherein “…the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products….” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” as described in ¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481]; ¶[0616]; ¶[0638]; ¶[0652] & ¶[0677]. This description along with other descriptions in the specification of the reaction producing the second plasma produced by and/or producing hydrinos suggests hydrinos are implicit to the claimed power generation system. But, hydrinos do not exist, and so a person skilled in the art would not be able to make the invention as claimed.
Also, claim 1 is directed to a power system that generates mechanical, thermal and/or electrical energy when “the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce[e] a second plasma and reaction products….” This reaction and/or reaction products implicitly comprise/s hydrinos. But, hydrinos do not exist, nor can they be produced by the claimed reaction, and therefore the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention as claimed to produce 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 generation system including, inter alia,
“d) a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce[e] a second plasma and reaction products; and
(e) a power adapter configured to convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal and/or electric energy.”
The specification teaches the power generator and plasma producer include a cell “for making hydrinos”, e.g., a SunCell® cell, comprising a driven plasma cell such as a discharge cell, a glow discharge, microwave discharge, or inductively or capacitively coupled discharge cell (e.g., “reaction cell chamber” 5b31; Fig.3; ¶[0307], ¶[0312], ¶[0329] & ¶[0458]). The “reaction to produce[e] a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” (¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481]; ¶[0616]; ¶[0638]; ¶[0652]; ¶[0677]). As noted above, “hydrinos” are “lower-energy hydrogen species” (¶[0281]), or hydrogen atoms comprising fractional numbers for n, or fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen given by equations (10) & (12) (¶[0218]]). They can be reacted with catalysts to provide a reaction with a net enthalpy (i.e., energy), e.g., of m · 27.2 eV (equation 14) where m is an integer (¶[0218]; ¶[0235]-¶[0243]).
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 ¶[0211]-¶[244], in particular equations (10) & (12) and ¶[0218] 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) (¶[0218]-¶[0220]), 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.”19 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)20 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 ¶[0218] 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., ¶[0218] 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 21, 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: a) at least one vessel capable of a maintaining a pressure below atmospheric comprising a reaction chamber;
b) two electrodes configured to allow a molten metal flow therebetween to complete a circuit;
c) a power source connected to said two electrodes to apply a current therebetween when said circuit is closed;
d) a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products; and
e) a power adapter configured to convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy.
The claim is fairly broad in that, except for the specific features in (d), the elements are all well-known in the prior art. See, e.g., Mills US Pat.Pub.2018/0159459, claims 1-2 & 23.
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 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility
Applicant argues patentability does not depend on the correctness of an inventor’s explanation of how an invention works (Response, p.10). But, this presumes the invention in question is enabled and does not contradict established science. In Applicant’s case, this presumption does not hold because the claimed “reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds”. See, e.g., the published specification ¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481], ¶[0616], ¶[0638], ¶[0652] & ¶[0677]. Hydrinos contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. As noted, hydrogen species with fractional principal quantum numbers described in the published specification ¶[0218], for example, are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry.
Applicant argues the Examiner improperly reads hydrinos and hydrino theory into the claims (Response, p.11). This is not persuasive. The claimed “reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” which is explicitly described in the published specification in ¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481], ¶[0616], ¶[0638], ¶[0652] & ¶[0677], among other places. The specification teaches that it is this “hydrino reaction” that produces the energy to form the plasma, a portion of which is converted to electrical and/or thermal power (¶[0005]- ¶[0007]; ¶[0016]; ¶[0211]; ¶[0235]). This indicates that obtaining energy from a hydrino reaction is the utility of the invention. But, hydrinos violate known scientific principles and are wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. Hydrinos by definition have fractional quantum numbers (¶[0212]; ¶[0218]). This contradicts classical physics. 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).
Applicant points to various “examples” and videos (Response, pp.12-15) as providing concrete experimental data in evidence of operability. The examples and videos lack specific citations and therefore cannot be properly evaluated, but a general review indicates they fail to establish a clear nexus with the claimed invention. It is also noted that a majority of the examples & videos are by the inventor, Randell Mills and/or his associates.
With respect to the Hagen & Mills paper on an electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) study of hydrino and hydrino theory “carried out in an independent laboratory” (Exhibit B), for example, it is not clear how a collaborative study of Mill’s own theory can be considered "independent". Further, the reference carries little evidentiary weight because its claims for “proof” of molecular hydrino contradict the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, including cited Nobel Laureates Pauling, Feynman & Bethe, which 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). Finally, the alleged “far-reaching implications” of the author’s conclusions for quantum mechanics, hydrogen-related chemistry, the astrophysics of dark matter and energy transduction and production technology (“Conclusions”) have failed to materialize. According to article metrics on the Science Direct website where the paper was reviewed, it has received only a single citation.22 Given the scientific community’s critical judgement of the inventor’s hydrino theory,23 this is hardly surprising.
Regarding Booker’s report, there are more glaring deficiencies. Booker has received payment from Blacklight Power, the parent company of the applicant of the invention, Brilliant Light Power ("Energy Play Draws Money and Ire", S.Jakab, Dow Jones Newswires, Jan.9, 2006; The Wall Street Journal; p.3; www.wsj.com/articles/SB113676233945541109). Therefore, Booker's statement that the experiment was “carried out correctly in front of an impartial validator” (i.e., himself, p.2) is not credible and his reports of the results of the experiments thus have little weight. Also, no clear nexus is established between the apparatus in the experiments and the claimed invention, and alleged output powers of the SunCell® (the so-called "thermal burst power") of, e.g., 637.5 times more power than the input in the case of the 1 mole% Bi₂O₃ added to the molten silver (Test 052316PA1; p.11), 200 times more for the case of the 1 mole% LiVO₃ (Test 052316PA2; p.12), and 26 times more for the case of the 0.5mole% LiVO₃ (Test 0524BDR; p.13) beggar belief and contradict conservation of energy. Finally, Booker's claim that the experiments are “reproducible” is not evidence that any such experiments, by independent researchers who are not paid and/or affiliated with the inventor, have actually been conducted. Regarding Coyle et al. (US Pat. No.9,994,450) and the suggestion that description in the patent literature of hydrino sub-ground state transitions provides experimental evidence of their existence, this is not persuasive since patents do not constitute peer-reviewed literature, particularly in a field as specialized and complex as quantum mechanics, nor does a description of hydrinos in a patent mean they are generally accepted by the scientific community. As noted, numerous citations demonstrate hydrino theory is incredible in view of contemporary knowledge to one of ordinary skill, and this would apply equally to Coyle. This reference as well as the others can be given little evidentiary weight because they are not independent and contradict the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, including cited Nobel Laureates Pauling, Feynman & Bethe. This alone occasions 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). Finally, besides failing to generate any interest in the scientific community, the tremendous power generation reported by Booker (e.g., 200x or 637.5x more power) is not supported by any evidence of commercial success of the device commensurate with these extraordinary reports.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Examiner provides no basis to discount the production of a material with unique measured spectroscopic signatures that match an allegedly unclaimed theory (Response, p.15), this is not persuasive. Applicant’s demand is unwarranted. The Patent Office is not a scientific laboratory, nor is detailed analysis of spectroscopic signatures necessary when the claim language itself contravenes established scientific principles and beliefs. One of ordinary skill could not make and use a device reliant upon hydrinos for operation. Therefore, since the claim fails the utility prong of 35 USC 101, the claims lack enablement under 35 USC 112(a).
B. Rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 14-15, 22-24, 29, 34-36 & 40 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicant argues “hydrinos are not claimed” and alleges the Examiner has not provided any rationale to challenge the presumption of enablement but instead has treated the issue improperly by relying on an unclaimed theory (Response, p.16).
This is not persuasive. The rejection sets forth a reasoned explanation based on the specification’s teaching of why the claimed “reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds”. See, e.g., the published specification ¶[0458]-¶[0462], ¶[0481], ¶[0616], ¶[0638], ¶[0652] & ¶[0677].
Further, many of the presumably similar “examples” submitted in support of operation explicitly attribute plasma reactions to molecular hydrinos. For example, Hagen & Mills report “…molecular hydrino H2[1/4] that was produced as gaseous inclusion in polymeric Ga(O)OH by a plasma reaction of atomic hydrogen with non-hydrogen bonded water as the catalyst” (abstract) and Booker describes hydrino reactions and reactants formed in the plasma in Suncells ® (pp.2&10-11). Thus, it is clear the invention---described, arguendo, in “examples”--- generates power by hydrino production.
Further, Applicant fails to address the Wand’s factor analysis that establishes the rationale for the rejection under 112(a). As explained in the rejection under 35 USC §101 and Response to Arguments above, the Examiner sets forth a reasoned argument why the claimed invention implicitly requires hydrinos in order to operate. Per MPEP 2107.02(IV), “[i]f a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been properly imposed, along with a corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the prima facie showing. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). With respect to evaluating the evidence, there is no predetermined amount or character that must be provided by an applicant to support an asserted utility. 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, 231 (Bd. App. 1957)), and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. 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).
The claimed invention does not have utility because the invention is inoperative. It contravenes established scientific principles and beliefs. Even though hydrinos are not explicitly recited, they are implicit to the claimed “reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products” whose energy is then “convert[ed] and/or transfer[red]…into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy”. The existence of “hydrinos” with energy ground states lower than ordinary hydrogen and fractional principal quantum numbers is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. One of ordinary skill, then, could not make and use a device reliant upon hydrinos for operation when their existence contradicts established laws of science. Therefore, since the claim fails the utility prong of 35 USC 101, the claims 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 All paragraph references are made with respect to the published specification US Pat.Pub.2023/0143022.
2 L.Pauling et al. “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1985), p.52.
3 R.Feynman et al., “The Feynman Lectures on Physics---Quantum Mechanics” Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading Mass. (1965), p.19-1 & 19-5.
4 Ibid., p.19-1 & 19-5.
5 Ibid., p.2-6, p.19-5.
6 A.Barth, “Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001, p.42.
7 Ibid., p.43.
8 Ibid., p.43.
9 Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127, Eq.1. p.3.
10 Ibid., p.4.
11 Ibid., pp.5-6.
12 Ibid., p.6.
13 N.Dombey, “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A 360, p.62-65 (2006).
14 Lawler, J.E., Goebel, C.J. Comment on “Time-resolved hydrino continuum transitions with cutoffs at 22.8 nm and 10.1 nm”. Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 29 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2011-20623-0
15 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.
16 A.V. Phelps et al. "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al." Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 120 (2012).
17 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.
18 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
19 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.
20 See pp.18-19 of the 16 January 2025 Response.
21 In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
22 Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino - ScienceDirect
23 See, e.g., the articles of Phelps, Kunze, Rathke. Lawler and Dombey noted in the rejections.
Prosecution Insights