DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 10/14/2025. The amendments to the specification and claims have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 10-20 withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ICF reactor chamber to receive said hohlraum” recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature cancelled from the claim. While Figure 3 shows a hohlraum (300) and a reactor chamber (310), the figure clearly shows the reactor chamber (310) is received in the hohlraum (300), rather than the reactor chamber (310) receiving the hohlraum (300) as recited in claim 1. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Analysis – 35 USC § 101
As set forth in MPEP 2107, examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to determine if the application has asserted for the claimed invention any specific and substantial utility that is credible. If no assertion of a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the claimed invention is made by Applicant, and the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility, the claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility.
To satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public and define a “real world” use of the invention as disclosed in its current form. Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use are not substantial utilities. A prima facie showing of no credible, specific, and substantial utility must establish that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider specific and substantial any utility or would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the utility is not both specific and substantial nor well-established or that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
The Present Invention and the Asserted Utility
Applicant’s invention is directed towards “[a] system for reducing thermal loss when igniting an Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) target” (preamble of claim 1). Specifically, as recited in the claims, the system comprises a “hohlraum”, “supporting means”, an “ICF reaction chamber”, a “processor”, and an ICF target comprising shells and receiving a fusion fuel (claim 1). According to the disclosure, the claimed system alleges to achieve ignition of the ICF target by “tailor[ing] the shell so that at the appropriate temperature the radiation containing component of the shell bleaches out and lets the core radiation escape”, thereby “result[ing] in less energy loss and more efficiency in the burning of the fusion fuel” ([0005], [0040]).
Applicant’s asserted utility of the claimed invention is therefore a fusion system for causing ignition.
Background on Fusion and “Ignition”
Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more light nuclei are combined, resulting in the release of a large amount of energy1 ([0024]). These reactions are only known to occur at extremely high temperatures (such as temperatures on the order of 107 K) and at extremely high pressures (such as those present on the sun)2 ([0024]). Achieving “ignition” is different from merely producing a fusion reaction. “Ignition”, as defined by Applicant, refers to a condition in which “a sufficient amount of fuel is compressed sufficiently and heated sufficiently” such that “a self-sustaining fusion reaction can occur in which energy produced by fusion reactions continues to heat the fuel” ([0001]). This allows “for significant energy to be produced before expansion of the fuel and the resultant cooling terminates the fusion reaction” ([0001]). Realizing ignition “requires heating a plasma of fusion fuel until it becomes hot enough to heat itself, meaning the energy released from fusion reactions exceeds the energy lost through various processes, such as Bremsstrahlung radiation and hydrodynamic expansion” ([0025]). In other words, ignition requires that more energy is produced from the generated fusion reactions than is used or lost in creating the reactions (i.e., a net energy gain).
Systems for generating fusion reactions are incredibly complex and the successes (or failures) of fusion systems depend on specific and precise parameters, with even slight changes to any of the numerous design aspects having the potential to significantly modify the outcomes of the system3 -([0002]-[0003]). There are various approaches utilized by these systems for creating (or attempting to create) the extreme conditions required for fusion reactions and, possibly ignition. One approach is inertial confinement fusion (ICF) in which short, powerful laser pulses are used to heat and compress a target of fusion fuel to a sufficiently hot and dense state having enough energy to initiate fusion reactions3 ([0001], [0003]-[0004], [0028]). For example, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest and most powerful ICF system built to date and uses the world’s highest-energy laser to deliver energy from 192 laser beams onto a deuterium-tritium (DT) target3. In ICF systems such as NIF, two of the major components affecting system performance are the target and the laser system. For example, parameters such as the size, shape, and composition of the target and the intensity, duration, and energy of the laser pulses can heavily influence the implosion physics3.
Successful fusion ignition has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”, driving multi-decade long endeavors by the international fusion community to reach this goal3. As acknowledged by Applicant, at the time of filing of the present application (i.e., 08/02/2022), “none [of the complex ICF target designs] have actually succeeded in producing ignition or the desired fuel conditions” ([0003]). In fact, the first ever demonstration of ignition was made in December 2022, after the filing date of the present application (08/02/2022), when NIF reportedly produced 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. The results of the experiment required decades of experimentation and research and have been hailed as “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” and a “fusion breakthrough”3.
Applicant’s Invention in view of the Current State of the Art
As acknowledged by Applicant, conventional ICF systems such as NIF “utilize the shell to contain radiation losses from the fuel core” (emphasis added) ([0040])3,4. For example, the ICF demonstration by NIF depended, at least in part, on overcoming issues of increased radiative losses3,4. Despite NIF’s progress towards reducing radiative losses, Applicant alleges to achieve ignition by “allow[ing] the core radiation to escape” ([0005]). In other words, as admitted by Applicant, the present invention purportedly achieves ignition in a manner which contradicts established fusion knowledge and existing experimental results. This is further reiterated in Applicant’s Remarks: “Applicant’s invention is unique from that of NIF” (Remarks, pp. 3, 8), “Applicant has created a unique ICF target design that differs from NIF” (Remarks, pp. 3, 8).
However, the disclosure lacks objective support for the alleged results and describes the necessary parameters and design aspects in an extremely broad manner. The disclosure provides only a theoretical analysis supporting the conclusion that the present invention is capable of causing ignition and does not identify any specific combination(s) of parameters and designs needed to actually achieve ignition. The key feature of the present invention, as best understood by Examiner, appears to be in “reducing a temperature at which the first shell is bleached” (claim 1) in order to allow for radiation losses to escape ([0005], [0037]-[0041]). Yet, as discussed further below, disclosure directed towards “bleach[ing]” is limited ([0037]-[0040]) and the specification merely recites “tailor[ing] the shell so that at the appropriate temperature the radiation containing component of the shell bleaches out and lets the core radiation escape” (emphasis added) ([0040]) and “design[ing the shell] such that at the appropriate temperature, the shell allows the core radiation to escape” (emphasis added) ([0005]), without identifying how to “tailor” or “design” the shell in a manner to allow the desired “bleaching” and the purported ignition. While Applicant appears to suggest that the areal density of the shell affects the “bleaching” temperature ([0037]-[0040]), as best understood by Examiner, the areal density of the shell is highly dependent on how the ICF system, specifically the lasers, are used and operated5. However, there is no disclosure as to how the claimed ICF system is used and operated or the specific design of the shell that would allow for such a “reduc[tion in] temperature at which the first shell is bleached”, and, thereby, the purported ignition.
Discussion
According to MPEP 2107, there is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an Applicant to support an asserted utility, therapeutic or otherwise. Rather, the character and amount of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed (Ex parte Ferguson, 117 USPQ 229 (Bd. App. 1957)), and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. Evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true.
Based on the above analysis, Examiner concludes that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider the utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention to be a specific and substantial utility that is credible. As has been established above, the present invention is directed towards a mechanism for causing fusion ignition that contradicts the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Further, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the alleged ignition by the present invention. Consequently, the evidence that must be provided to establish a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the present invention must be sufficiently strong to overcome the weight of the mountain of experimental evidence that underpins the conclusion of the scientific community. The present disclosure would therefore not lead a skilled artisan to conclude ignition occurs.
Analysis – Specification and 35 USC § 112(a)
As set forth in MPEP 2163, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Additionally, as set forth in MPEP 2164, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
To determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
As discussed above, there is no evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving ignition and the specification fails to describe distinguishing and identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Based on the evidence regarding the aforementioned Wands factors, the specification at the time the application was filed would not have taught one skilled in the art how to achieve the disclosed asserted utility of fusion ignition:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards “[a] system for reducing thermal loss when igniting an Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) target” (claim 1). The distinguishing features of the claimed invention appear to be in the design of the first shell of the ICF target in order to allow for radiative losses ([0005], [0037]-[0041]). However, as shown in the above analysis, to date, NIF has been the only ICF facility to successfully demonstrate ignition and such demonstrations involved reducing radiative losses. This suggests that, if Applicant’s claimed invention is capable of such a feat, essential mechanisms for generating ignition while allowing for radiative losses have been omitted from the claims. Even slight changes to any of the numerous design aspects of a fusion system, such as variations in the target structure (e.g., varying a material of the target or varying a thickness of a component of the target), can significantly modify the outcomes of the system3 ([0002]-[0003]). Yet, the claims merely recite the intended/desired results of “reducing thermal loss when igniting an Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) target”, “said inner shell has an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites” (which includes an areal density of zero), “the ICF target is to be ignited”, “reduc[ing] the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target”, and “said fusion fuel mixture of said central region at ignition has a temperature of approximately 2.5-3 keV and an areal density of approximately 0.75 g/cm2” without reciting any actual structure, materials, or steps for causing such a reduction and further fail to recite the specific design aspects of the claimed system and ICF target necessary to achieve the alleged result of ignition. MPEP 2164.08.
(B)-(D) The nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, is directed towards ICF systems and fusion ignition. The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands the concepts of nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions and would be capable of delving into the scientific literature on the topics and ascertaining how it could be applied to the present invention. As discussed above, radiative losses are understood by the scientific community to inhibit ignition3,4. The effects disclosed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and a skilled artisan would be unable to use the available scientific literature to successfully cause ignition using the claimed ICF system as ignition in this manner has not yet been achieved. MPEP 2164.05(a).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The results of fusion experiments are predictably unpredictable3,4. As discussed above, the most successful fusion experiment to date was the first ever demonstration of ignition, despite over half a century of research. Small variations in a component or parameter of the fusion system, such as changes on the order of microns to the thickness of the target capsule, can dictate the performance and outcomes of the system3. The inventors have therefore set forth the desired result of ignition using a mechanism (enhanced radiative losses) which has been predictably unable to generate ignition, without identifying how one could achieve these results. MPEP 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventors: 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. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). As discussed above, successful ignition via enhanced radiative losses operates contrary to conventional knowledge, suggesting that a complete disclosure of the structure, materials, and steps for causing ignition by allowing radiation to escape are required to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the disclosed invention. Further, as discussed above, fusion systems are complex systems and the successes (or failures) of these systems depend on specific design parameters including, but not limited to, the composition and dimensions of the target3. However, there is no disclosure of the combination of these specific parameters necessary for achieving ignition using Applicant’s invention. MPEP 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: As discussed above, examples are defined as and explained by theoretical possibilities and are not reliably-reproducible working examples. MPEP 2164.02.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: The quantity of experimentation needed is infinite, as the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention, and the provided theoretical guidance is insufficient to enable one to understand the underlying sequence of phenomena required to attempt such an endeavor. MPEP 2164.06.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and the enablement requirement. Based on the above analysis, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention and fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility for the reasons set forth above. In the above analysis, Examiner has provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would reasonably doubt this asserted utility of the claimed invention. “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention’s asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles’”. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
As set forth in MPEP 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed further below. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted, “Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it”. Because the invention as claimed does not have a specific and substantial utility that is credible, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Based on the above analysis, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention, as discussed above. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility as discussed above (see paragraph 17 above).
Claims 1-9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, as currently presented, requires “wherein said inner shell has an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”. Claim 5, as currently presented, “wherein said inner shell ... comprises: an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”. Claim 7, as currently presented, requires “wherein the inner shell ... compris[es]: an areal density of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2 as it ignites”. There is insufficient support for this feature in the original disclosure. Regarding the term “areal density” the specification as filed discloses (emphasis added):
“Stagnation of these shocks and inward-moving material at the center of the target is intended to result in the formation of a small ‘hotspot’ of fuel, at a temperature of roughly 10 keV and a ρr of approximately 0.3 g/cm2” ([0004])
“The product ‘ρr’ may refer to the areal density of a material. This term may refer to a parameter that can be used to characterize fusion burn” ([0020])
“The peak areal density (ρr) reached in the fusion fuel of central region 104 may be approximately 0.75 g/cm2. During a typical implosion, the areal density (ρr) of the shell may be in the range of 5-10 g/cm2 for D-T fusion fuel. At an ignition temperature of around 2.5 Kev, the thermal depth of the wave penetrating the shell is ρrth ≈ .1 - .2 g/cm2. Because of this relatively high areal density (ρr), the dominant energy loss mechanism of the fusion fuel may be radiation emission” ([0036]-[0037])
“At this critical temperature (TKC) the wall would bleach and let the radiation leave. As an example,
ρr = 2 g/cm2, ρ = 102 g/cm3, TKC = 4.9 KeV
ρr = .4 g/cm2, ρ = 102 g/cm3, TKC = 3.0 KeV
Therefore, the areal density of the shell is reduced while reducing only the thickness of the shell, and thus the critical temperature for bleaching the shell is also reduced. As shown above, around these temperatures, a low areal density (ρrTH
PNG
media_image1.png
19
13
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.1 - .2 g/cm2) of the shell would be penetrated and the thermal loss would decrease” ([0038]-[0039])
“In step 218, the fuel may reach the desired conditions, with this step occurring earlier than it otherwise would due to the suppression of radiation losses in step 216. In some embodiments, this may include the conditions required for ignition, which may include a ρr of at least approximately 0.6 g/cm2 and a temperature of at least approximately 2.5 keV” ([0044])
The claims as filed recite:
“said first shell comprises a plurality of materials having a Z greater than 48 and having an areal density of less than approximately 4 g/cm2” (claims 1, 11)
“the first shell of the ICF target further comprises an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2” (claim 5)
“the first shell of the ICF target further comprises an areal density of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2” (claim 7)
“reducing the areal density of the first shell of the ICF target to less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2” (claim 15)
“reducing the areal density of the first shell of the ICF target to less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2” (claim 17)
Thus, while the original specification discloses an areal density (ρr) equal to 0.4 g/cm2 at the “critical temperature” (nothing to suggest the areal density may be less than 0.4 g/cm2) and the original claims recite an areal density of the first shell of “less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2” and “less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2” (nothing to suggest that this is the areal density “as it ignites”), there is nothing in the original disclosure to suggest that the areal density of the first shell “as it ignites” is “less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2” and “less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2”, as required by the claims. Additionally, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim language is supported in the original disclosure. The features are therefore new matter.
Claim 1, as currently presented, requires “a processor configured to execute a radiation hydrodynamics code to optimize the ICF target and reduce the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target”. Claim 6 recites “a processor configured to execute the radiation hydrodynamics code to optimize the ICF target and reduce the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached to be less than approximately 3.0 keV”. There is insufficient support for these features in the original disclosure. The term “processor” does not appear to be recited anywhere in the original disclosure, nor is there any disclosure of two processors. The only disclosure of the “radiation hydrodynamics code” is in paragraph [0033] of the original specification: “The use of a radiation hydrodynamics code may be advantageous in optimizing the design of ICF target 102, including the composition and dimensional relations of the components discussed”. Additionally, Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim language is supported in the original disclosure. The features are therefore new matter.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said inner shell has an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”, “wherein the ICF target is to be ignited when within said ICF reaction chamber”, and “to optimize the ICF target and reduce the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target, wherein said fusion fuel mixture of said central region at ignition has a temperature of approximately 2.5-3 keV and an areal density of approximately 0.75 g/cm2”. Claim 5 similarly recites “wherein the inner shell of the ICF target further comprises: an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”. Claim 6 similarly recites “to optimize the ICF target and reduce the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached to be less than approximately 3.0 keV”. Claim 7 similarly recites “wherein the inner shell of the ICF target further comprising: an areal density of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2 as it ignites”.
These phrases would appear to be directed towards a function or result achieved by the claimed system. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature by what it does rather than by what it is. It is unclear from the claim the particular structure, materials, or steps which enable the claimed ICF system to achieve the results as recited in the claims. The claims appear to merely recite a description of the functions/results achieved by the invention and, therefore, the scope of the claims is unclear.
Additionally, the phrases “of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2” in claims 1 and 5 and “of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2” in claim 7 allow for an areal density of zero. It is unclear how the inner shell can have an areal density of zero “as it ignites”. Similarly, the phrase “less than approximately 3.0 keV” in claim 6 allows for a temperature of zero. It is unclear how the inner shell can be “bleached” at a temperature of zero.
Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached” in claim 6.
Claim 1 recites “a processor configured to execute a radiation hydrodynamics code to optimize the ICF target and reduce the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target”. It is unclear how the processor achieves the function of “reduc[ing] the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target”. It is further unclear what is meant by the phrase “optimize the ICF target”. For example, it is unclear what aspect of the ICF target is “optimize[d]” and whether the claim requires optimizing an existing ICF target (the previously recited “ICF target” or something else.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9 are further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the various recited materials. Claim 1 recites “said inner shell comprises a plurality of materials” and “the outer shell comprises a second plurality of materials”. Claim 3 recites “each one of the plurality of materials in the inner shell” and “each one of the plurality of materials in the outer shell”. It is unclear if the “plurality of materials” is different from the “second plurality of materials” and, if so, which of the “plurality of materials” the “each one of the plurality of materials” is intending to refer to in claim 3. It is further unclear how a material (i.e., “each one of the plurality of materials”) can be in a “laminated, mixed, or layered fashion”. Similarly, it is unclear in claim 4, which recites “the plurality of materials in the outer shell”, what “plurality of materials” the claim is referring to. It is further unclear if the “one or more materials” in claim 4 is referring to the “one or more of the plurality of materials” or something else. Claim 4 further recites “wherein the outer shell comprises a mixture of one or more materials having a Z of 5 or below is laminated, layered, or mixed with one or materials having a Z greater than 48”. It is again unclear which materials are referring to the same or different materials. For example, it is unclear if the “mixture of one or more materials having a Z of 5 or below” is referring to the “one or more materials having a Z of 5 or below” previously recited in claim 4. It is also unclear if the “one or more materials having a Z greater than 48” is referring to the “one or more of the plurality of materials having a Z greater than 48” previously recited in claim 1 or something else. The phrase also appears to include an additional term/phrase or appears to be missing a term/phrase. It is unclear how “one or more materials”, which includes one material” can form a “mixture”. Claim 9 recites “at least one of the plurality of materials in the inner shell is tungsten”. It is unclear if the “at least one of the plurality of materials” is referring to one of the “one or more of the plurality of materials” previously recited in claim 1 or something else.
Any claim not explicitly addressed above is rejected because it is dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “wherein the inner shell of the ICF target further comprises: an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”. Parent claim 1 already previously recites “wherein said inner shell has an areal density of approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites”. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Note on Claim Interpretation
As discussed above and as best understood by Examiner in view of the disclosure, the “reducing thermal loss when igniting an Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) target” (claim 1), “wherein said inner shell has an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites” (claim 1), “wherein the ICF target is to be ignited when within said ICF reaction chamber” (claim 1), “to optimize the ICF target and reduce the thermal loss when igniting the ICF target” (claim 1), “wherein said fusion fuel mixture of said central region at ignition has a temperature of approximately 2.5-3 keV and an areal density of approximately 0.75 g/cm2” (claim 1), “wherein the inner shell of the ICF target further comprises: an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites” (claim 5), “to optimize the ICF target and reduce the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached to be less than approximately 3.0 keV” (claim 6), and “wherein the inner shell of the ICF target further comprising: an areal density of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2 as it ignites” (claim 7) appear to be statements of intended or desired use (see [0037]-[0040]). These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the applied references as long as the structure of the cited references is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115. As set forth in MPEP 2115, a recitation in a claim to the material or article worked upon does not serve to limit an apparatus claim. The apparatus in the cited reference is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0139651 (“Cornell”) in view of US Publication No. 2017/0229194 (“Galloway”).
Regarding claim 1, Cornell (previously cited) (see FIG. 3) discloses a system for allegedly reducing thermal loss when igniting an Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) target ([0002]-[0003], [0016], [0024]-[0025]), the system comprising:
an ICF target (300) comprising:
a central region (102), wherein said central region receives a fusion fuel mixture (“DT”) ([0016], [0020]);
an inner shell (304), wherein said inner shell comprises a plurality of materials, wherein one or more of the plurality of materials (“238U”) has a Z greater than 48 (uranium6 has an atomic number of 92, which is greater than 48) and an opacity to radiation in a range of approximately7 0.5-2.5 keV ([0016]-[0017], [0020]; Cornell discloses the one or more of the plurality of materials may be U-238, which the present application at paragraph [0032] discloses as a suitable material for the one or more of the plurality of materials of the inner shell); and
an outer shell (104), wherein said outer shell surrounds said inner shell and wherein the outer shell comprises a second plurality of materials ([0016]-[0017], [0020]); and
a hohlraum to receive said ICF target ([0004], [0019], [0022]).
Cornell discloses the target may be placed within the hohlraum ([0004], [0019], [0022]), but appears to be silent as to a supporting means. However, it was known in the art to provide supporting means for an ICF target within a hohlraum. For example, Galloway (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a system comprising an ICF target (100) placed within a hohlraum (101) ([0042], [0044]). Galloway teaches the system comprises supporting means to suspend the ICF target concentrically within the hohlraum ([0044]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include supporting means, as taught by Galloway, in Cornell’s systems for the predictable advantage of positioning and supporting the target within the hohlraum, as taught by Galloway ([0044]).
Cornell does not appear to disclose an ICF reaction chamber. Galloway (see FIGS. 1, 4) teaches the system comprises an ICF reaction chamber for receiving the hohlraum ([0045]). Galloway further teaches the ICF reaction chamber provides the advantage of containing energy that would allegedly be released by the target ([0045]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include an ICF reaction chamber, as taught by Galloway, in the modified Cornell’s system for the predictable purpose of containing any released energy, as taught by Galloway.
Cornell does not appear to disclose a process configured to execute a radiation hydrodynamic code. Galloway (see FIG. 1) teaches the system comprises a processor configured to execute a radiation hydrodynamics code ([0053]). Galloway further teaches code provides the advantages of allowing for optimizing the design of the ICF target, including the composition and dimensional relations of the target components ([0053]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include the processor executing the radiation hydrodynamics code, as taught by Galloway, in the modified Cornell’s system for the predictable purpose of optimizing the target, as taught by Galloway.
As discussed above and as best understood by Examiner, the limitations directed towards the reduction of thermal loss, the alleged achievement of ignition, and the areal density and temperature of the fusion fuel mixture at the alleged ignition appear to be statements of intended or desired use. Cornell in view of Galloway teaches all of the structure of the claimed system. Thus, if the claimed system is allegedly capable of reducing thermal loss when igniting the ICF target, having an areal density of the inner shell of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites, igniting the ICF target when the ICF target is within the ICF reaction chamber, having a temperature of the fusion fuel mixture of approximately 2.5-3 keV at ignition, and having an areal density of the fusion fuel mixture of approximately 0.75 g/cm2 at ignition, then so would the modified Cornell’s system.
Regarding claim 2, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 1. Cornell discloses the ICF target further comprises an outer region (306) concentrically located between said inner shell and said outer shell (FIG. 3, [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 2. Cornell discloses each one of the plurality of materials in the inner shell are in a laminated, mixed, or layered fashion ([0020]) and each one of the second plurality of materials in the outer shell are in a laminated, mixed, or layered fashion ([0016], [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 3. Cornell discloses the second plurality of materials includes one or more materials having a Z greater than 48 ([0016]-[0017], [0020]). Cornell suggests the target includes an outermost ablator layer comprising a material having a Z of 5 or below, which allows for implosion of the target ([0016], [0019]-[0020]). Galloway similarly teaches an outermost ablator layer comprising a material having a Z of 5 or below, which allows for the initiation of the implosion of the target ([0044], [0046], [0053]).
Regarding claim 5, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 4. As discussed above and as best understood by Examiner, the limitations directed towards the alleged achievement of ignition and the areal density of the inner shell at the alleged ignition appear to be statements of intended or desired use. Cornell in view of Galloway teaches all of the structure of the claimed system. Thus, if the claimed system is allegedly capable of having an areal density of the inner shell of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm2 as it ignites, then so would the modified Cornell’s system.
Regarding claim 6, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 5. As discussed above, Galloway teaches the processor configured to execute the radiation hydrodynamics code to optimize the ICF target ([0053]). As discussed above and as best understood by Examiner, the limitations directed towards the alleged achievement of ignition and the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached appear to be statements of intended or desired use. Cornell in view of Galloway teaches all of the structure of the claimed system. Thus, if the claimed system is allegedly capable of reducing the temperature at which the inner shell is bleached to be less than approximately 3.0 keV, then so would the modified Cornell’s system.
Regarding claim 7, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 6. As discussed above and as best understood by Examiner, the limitations directed towards the alleged achievement of ignition and the areal density of the inner shell at the alleged ignition appear to be statements of intended or desired use. Cornell in view of Galloway teaches all of the structure of the claimed system. Thus, if the claimed system is allegedly capable of having an areal density of the inner shell of less than approximately 0.2 g/cm2 as it ignites, then so would the modified Cornell’s system.
Regarding claim 8, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 3. Cornell discloses the plurality of materials in the inner shell are non-fissile fissionable material ([0014]).
Regarding claim 9, Cornell in view of Galloway teaches the system of claim 3. Cornell does not appear to disclose at least one of the plurality of materials in the inner shell is tungsten. However, as discussed above, Cornell discloses the inner shell may comprise a plurality of materials, including materials having a Z greater than 48 ([0016], claim 1). Galloway teaches the material of the inner shell may include various materials such as tungsten ([0044], [0051]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to include tungsten in the plurality of materials because Galloway teaches this is a suitable material, having a Z greater than 48, for the inner shell. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to use tungsten as a material of the inner shell since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome some, but not all, of the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and have created new issues as discussed above.
Applicant argues “Figures 1 and 3 and the specification, specifically paragraphs [0032]-[0042], clearly describe the optimal ICF target that is necessary for the unique results” (Remarks, p. 2), asserting that the specification describes “specific characteristics of the optimal ICF target ... such as composition, critical temperature, areal density, etc.” (Remarks, p. 2), “the process in which the ICF target is ignited” (Remarks, p. 2), and “the optimal materials selected” (Remarks, p. 2) (see also Remarks, pp. 4-5, 5-6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited figures or paragraphs (FIGS. 1-3, [0032]-[0044]; see Remarks, pp. 2, 4-5, 5-6) “clearly describe the optimal ICF target” as asserted by Applicant. The actual structure, materials, and steps disclosed for allegedly achieving ignition using the claimed system are extremely broad. For example, Applicant alleges the specification describes “specific characteristics of the optimal ICF target ... such as composition” and the “optimal materials selected”. Yet, the specification discloses:
“Inner shell 106 may be made of a variety of materials.... Use of high-Z materials ... may be advantageous, but other materials may be substituted as well. One could use a medium-Z material ... or low-Z material ... for the inner shell 106, one could even mix a low-Z material with a high-Z material or a low-Z material with a medium-Z material” ([0032]) – in other words, the “inner shell” can be made of any and all material
“The ICF target 102 may be scaled up or down in size” ([0032]) – no specific target size is disclosed
“The radius of central region 104 may be increased or decreased” ([0032]) – no specific radius is disclosed
“Thickness of inner shell 106 and outer fuel region 108 may be increased or decreased” ([0032]) – no specific thicknesses are disclosed
“Ablator region 112 may be manufactured from a variety of materials or combinations of a plurality of materials.... Low-Z materials may be advantageous as ablators, but other materials may be used such as high-Z materials” ([0033]) – no specific materials are disclosed and low-Z and high-Z materials encompasses 75 of the 118 known chemical elements
“The thickness of ablator region 112 may be increased or decreased” ([0033]) – no specific thickness is disclosed
The disclosure fails to identify, for example, any specific materials of the outer shell, outer fuel region, or ablator region or a specific thickness of any of the various shells and regions. Characteristics such as the “critical temperature” and “areal density” describe an intended or desired result of compressing or igniting the ICF target. There is no disclosure discussing what feature of the ICF target itself (e.g., materials, dimensions, etc.) enables the inner shell to have “an areal density of less than approximately 0.4 g/cm-2 as it ignites” or how such an areal density is achieved. The actionable steps in the disclosed “process in which the ICF target is ignited” (Remarks, pp. 2, 4, 6) appear to involve merely positioning the target and illuminating the target with a laser pulse. The remaining steps of ablating outer layers of the target, driving a shock inwardly through the ablator, accelerating the shell inwardly, heating and compressing the fuel, suppressing fluctuations, containing radiation losses from the fuel, and reaching desired conditions are all intended or desired results of positioning and illuminating the target.
The present specification discloses “this invention tailors the shell so that at the appropriate temperature the radiation containing component of the shell bleaches out and lets the core radiation escape ... aiding in ignition and efficient burn of the fusion fuel” ([0040]; see also [0005]). While a key aspect of the invention is the design of the shell and target, the disclosure does not identify any specific combination(s) of parameters and designs needed to actually achieve ignition as discussed above. Considering Applicant’s invention in view of the current state of the art, the lack of objective support for the alleged ignition by the present invention, and the entirely theoretical and broad disclosure, Examiner maintains that it is more likely than not that a pe