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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
A reply was filed on 02/06/2026. The amendments to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending in the application and examined herein.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Analysis – 35 USC § 101
As set forth in MPEP 2107, examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to determine if the application has asserted for the claimed invention any specific and substantial utility that is credible. If no assertion of a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the claimed invention is made by Applicant, and the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility, the claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility. To satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public and define a “real world” use of the invention as disclosed in its current form. Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use are not substantial utilities. A prima facie showing of no credible, specific, and substantial utility must establish that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider specific and substantial any utility or would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the utility is not both specific and substantial nor well-established or that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
The Present Invention and the Asserted Utility
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed towards “[a]n apparatus comprising: a tubular electrode ... and an excitation source” (claim 1). The apparatus would allegedly be capable of “creati[ng] an electric field greater than about 108 V/m” (claim 1), “fus[ing] the fusion fuel material, the fusion comprising a fusion reaction” (claim 1), “an occurrence of the fusion reaction being configured to produce current and/or voltage for generation of electricity” (claim 1), and “lower[ing] the Coulomb barrier between two fusing atoms, the lowering of the Coulomb barrier being configured to induce ... the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction” (claim 4). According to the disclosure, the excitation source causes electrons to oscillate, creating an electric field and ponderomotive forces ([0049]-[0050], [0064]-[0065], claims 1, 4). With sufficient ponderomotive forces, electrons may be driven into a pore-containing structure of the base structure ([0065]-[0066]). Purportedly, the ponderomotive forces “lower the Coulomb barrier between two fusing atoms” (claim 4), thereby “induc[ing] ... the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction” (claim 4; see also claim 1: “creating an area of high electron density configured to fuse the fusion fuel material, the fusing comprising a fusion reaction; and an occurrence of the fusion reaction”) having sufficient energy for practical applications (e.g., “an occurrence of the fusion reaction being configured to produce current and/or voltage for generation of electricity”) are produced (claim 1). For example, the specification discloses (emphasis added):
“the present inventions relate to, among other things, fusion activities ... for the utilization of energy produced from these activities” ([0002]);
“The present methods, devices and systems for conducting fusion reactions solve [the] problems, deficiencies, and inadequacies associated with prior attempts to create a viable controlled fusion system.... Moreover, available aneutronic embodiments of controlled fusion avoid the potential issues associated with managing neutrons produced in other fusion reactions, and make devices utilizing these embodiments readily usable in devices that are closely associated with living entities, e.g., a pace maker” ([0022]);
“the present inventions relate to ... fusion activities [and] small devices for causing and controlling these small fusion activities, and utilizing the products of these fusion activities” ([0032]);
“The submicron controlled fusion device can be associated with a device for generating electricity. The devices would include, for example, sensor chips that have been adapted to generate a current, voltage or both in response to the heat generated by the fusion reaction, in response to the charged fusion product particles generated by the fusion reaction and both. Thus, as examples, (A) a radiation detection type diode can be adapted to produce electricity from the fusion products, (B) a thermoelectric device could convert a portion of the heat energy into electric current, (C) a fluid could be forced to flow, expand or incur a phase change so as [to] create some electricity or other useful energy. The devices for generating electricity from the controlled fusion reaction could also include ... direct conversion to electricity.... [I]f the means of direct conversion to electricity was only partially efficient, it could be deployed in combination with a thermoelectric device to create electricity from the heat remaining after deployment of the direct conversion mechanism” ([0055]);
“A submicron controlled fusion device is associated with a detection chip that has been adapted to convert the fusion product particles into electricity” ([0093]);
“The electrical generation assembly of Example 4 powers a circuit in an electronic device.... [T]he device could be an independent unit with a primary function of providing electricity and/or heat to some other device” ([0095]); and
“The collective energy from the array [of substrates loaded with a fusion fuel] can then be converted into electrical energy, or other forms of energy” ([0099]).
Applicant’s asserted utility of the claimed invention is therefore an apparatus for practical energy production from fusion reactions.
Conditions for Fusion
Initiating fusion requires overcoming the Coulomb barrier, which is only known to occur at extremely high temperatures (such as temperatures in the range of 107-108 K) and at extremely high pressures (such as those present on the sun)1. As acknowledged by Applicant ([0011]-[0018]), conventional fusion systems are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion systems which produce (or attempt to produce) these conditions in order to generate a plasma with sufficient energy to overcome this Coulombic repulsion2 (see also [0060]-[0061], [0079]). These systems rely on mechanisms such as inertial or magnetic confinement in order to prevent direct contact of the hot plasma with solid structures of the fusion system (e.g., a physical chamber)2.
By contrast, Applicant alleges to have invented an apparatus for inducing sustainable fusion at significantly lower temperatures (e.g., at or near room temperature) by creating an electric field to lower the Coulomb barrier ([0050], [0062]-[0063], [0066], [0079]). However, there is no widespread support in the scientific community for Applicant’s theories of “modifying, changing, lowering, reducing or eliminating the [Coulomb] barrier” ([0058]). Applicant further has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating a scientific consensus that these theories can practicably achieve the disclosed astonishing feats for fusion systems.
Not only does Applicant explicitly state that the alleged fusion reactions could occur at room temperature ([0050]), but Applicant also does not disclose any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required for causing these reactions. Further, the present invention bears no similarity to the thermonuclear fusion systems known to have successfully initiated fusion. For example, Applicant purports to have produced fusion reactions without inertial or magnetic confinement, using only physical containment ([0019], [0078]). This is despite Applicant admitting the prior art expressly acknowledges that physical containment of such reactions is impossible ([0017]-[0018]). Said differently, Applicant’s apparatus is not capable of producing or sustaining fusion as the apparatus provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the extreme conditions known to be required to induce fusion.
Net Energy Fusion
The ratio of the energy produced from fusion reactions to the energy used or lost in creating the fusion reactions is commonly referred to as the “Q” value ([0012]). Fusion reactors which achieve a Q > 1, are said to have achieved “breakeven” or a net energy gain. In order to be useful as a practical energy source, a fusion reactor would need to controllably and sustainably produce fusion reactions having a Q > 1 ([0012]). Net energy gain from fusion reactors has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”, driving multi-decade long endeavors by the international fusion community to reach this goal3.
Applicant acknowledges this challenge, disclosing:
“For 60 years the science and technology communities have been striving to achieve controlled and economically viable fusion. The commonly held belief in the art is that another 25-50 years of research remain before fusion is a viable option for power generation.... Further, until the present inventions, it was believed that a paradigm existed in that achieving fusion of reactants was unobtainable without incredibly high temperatures.... As a consequence, it was further believed that there was no reason to construct, or investigate the composition of, a nuclear fusion reactor with lower temperature reactant confinement” ([0011]);
“[T]he art has looked to the Lawson criterion as the benchmark for controlled fusion reactions-a benchmark, it is believed, that no one has yet achieved when accounting for all energy inputs” ([0012]); and
“The importance and value of achieving economically viable controlled fusion has long been recognized and sought after in the art. Controlled fusion may have applications in energy production.... In the energy production area, controlled fusion has been envisioned to provide a solution to global energy and environmental challenges.... Accordingly, there has been a long-standing and unfulfilled need for a controlled fusion reaction, and the clean energy ... associated with such a reaction” ([0020]).
Even with decades of research by the international scientific community, there currently exist no fusion systems capable of producing such useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational thermonuclear fusion system in the United States. The system delivers as much as 500 trillion watts of power to a fusion target using 192 of the world’s highest-energy lasers in order to create temperatures on the order of 107 K and pressures on the order of 1010 atm4. As recently as December 2022, the NIF reportedly produced 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a fusion target producing more energy than was delivered to the target and the results of the experiment have been hailed as “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” and a “fusion breakthrough”. However, the laser system itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. In other words, the system operated at an overall net energy loss (see also [0012]). Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment was far from a demonstration of practical energy production – as stated by experts in the fusion community5,6,7,8.
While the most successful fusion experiment was unable to create a fusion energy output sufficient for practical applications, Applicant alleges the present invention “break[s] the prior art paradigm” and “solve[s] ... problems, deficiencies, and inadequacies associated with prior attempts to create a viable controlled fusion system” ([0019], [0022]). Compared to the NIF’s large, complex, and sophisticated systems (see also [0017]), the present invention purportedly generates a commercially viable energy gain using a suspiciously simple set up: “the present inventions relate to ... fusion activities that are conducted individually on a very small scale” and “utilize[s] the creation of submicron regions, and preferably nano regions ... of high charge densities to provide for controlled fusion reactions, and preferably with simple containment schemes (without the need for any complicated containment schemes), and more preferably without the need for any magnetic fields” ([0032]-[0033]).
Further, the disclosure lacks objective support for the alleged results and only provides a theoretical analysis supporting the conclusion that the present invention is capable of initiating and sustaining net energy fusion reactions. For example, Applicant discloses (emphasis added):
“it is presently believed that this is primarily a surface effect” ([0049]);
“Thus, it is theorized that this collective and coherent motion of electrons is similar to, and may be, the type of electron movement exhibited in superconductive materials” ([0050]);
“In operation it is believed that the creation of the area of high electron density enables, facilitates, or furthers the fusion reaction of the fusion fuel. It is theorized that among other things, the presence of the high electron density lowers the coulomb barrier.... Further, it is theorized that the highly localized electron density, creates a ponderomotive force that drives the fusion fuel together, and also drives the electrons into the substructure of the base material, enhancing the fusion reaction of the fusion fuel” ([0052]);
“The theories put forth in this specification ... many [sic] not be required or practiced to utilize the present inventions. It is further understood that the present inventions may lead to new, and heretofore unknown theories to explain the fusion methods, devices and system of the present inventions” ([0059]);
“This phenomenon affects the Coulomb repulsion and may reduce the Coulomb barrier.... It is believed that these electrons in the substructure provide an electron shielding effect which reduces the Coulomb barrier and enhances the fusion reaction rate” ([0066]);
“It is believed that this leads to an increased rate of tunneling and a greater occurrence of fusion reactions” ([0069]);
“the compression induced by the centrifugal force leads to an increased density of particles in the region in which fusion events are expected to be concentrated” ([0077]);
“It is expected that the fusion process will release more electrons through heating or collisions with fusion products. These processes could cause larger electron density fluctuations.... This type of positive feedback generates stronger screening effects and could create sustainable fusion process for energy production” ([0083]);
“According to theory and past experiments the cloud chamber will show the emission of fusion product particles from the electrodes. The fusion products will include helium-3” ([0091]); and
“Applicant has outlined a theory of electron-catalyzed fusion (ECF) that utilizes large electric fields to suppress the Coulomb barrier. This theory predicts specific experimental conditions that will produce fusion” (Remarks dated 04/18/2024, p. 9)
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 producing fusion reactions that contradicts the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Further, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the alleged fusion reactions and practical energy production by the present invention. Consequently, the evidence that must be provided to establish a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the present invention must be sufficiently strong to overcome the weight of the mountain of experimental evidence that underpins the conclusion of the scientific community. The present disclosure would therefore not lead a skilled artisan to conclude fusion reactions (at temperatures including room temperature), let alone net energy fusion reactions, occur.
Analysis – Specification and 35 USC § 112(a)
As set forth in MPEP 2163, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Additionally, as set forth in MPEP 2164, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
As discussed above, there is no evidence that the present invention is capable of inducing fusion reactions or net energy fusion. There exist no systems or methods to date which have successfully produced a useful energy gain from fusion reactions and the specification fails to describe distinguishing and identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Further, to determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included: (A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, Examiner summarizes the above elaborated explanations as to why Applicant's invention fails to satisfy the enablement requirement:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards “[a]n apparatus” (claim 1) for “inducing ... an oscillating flow of electrons oscillating in opposing directions” (claim 1), “creat[ing] an electric field” (claim 1), “creat[ing] an area of high electron density configured to fuse the fusion fuel material, the fusing comprising a fusion reaction” (claim 1), “produc[ing] current and/or voltage for generation of electricity” (claim 1), “lower[ing] the Coulomb barrier” (claim 4), “induc[ing] ... the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction” (claim 4), inducing an “aneutronic” fusion reaction (claim 5), and “induc[ing] electrons” (claim 7). The claimed apparatus alleges to accomplish such results using a “tubular electrode comprising a tapering section terminating in a tip of the tubular electrode” and comprising “a pore-containing structure embedded with fusion fuel material” (claim 1) and an “excitation source including one or more of a RF generator device, a microwave generator device, a laser and a magnetron” (claim 1). However, as discussed above, no prior art fusion system has been able to achieve the alleged results. Therefore, if Applicant’s claimed invention is capable of such feats, essential mechanisms for inducing net energy fusion reactions have been omitted from the claims. See MPEP 2164.08.
(B)-(C) The nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy ([0002], [0022], [0032], [0055], [0093], [0095], [0099]). The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands the concepts of nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions and would be capable of delving into the scientific literature on the topics and ascertaining how it could be applied to the present invention. As currently disclosed by Applicant, such viability involves a compete departure from accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear, plasma, and particle physics and chemistry. Thus, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science. Further, the effects as claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it. See MPEP 2164.05(a).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Experiments attempting to produce fusion reactions at temperatures significantly lower than those known to be required for these processes have been predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data. Further, even the results of thermonuclear fusion experiments are predictably unpredictable. As discussed above, the most successful thermonuclear fusion experiment to date was unable to produce a net energy gain, despite over half a century of research. Applicant has thus set forth the desired result of net energy fusion reactions without identifying how one could achieve these results. See MPEP 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability of the art. As discussed above, there are currently no known fusion reactors capable of producing a net energy gain. As such, the specification would need more detail as to how to make and use the invention in order to be enabling. However, Applicant's underlying theory is speculative at best and Applicant fails to provide a detailed explanation as to how to achieve energy production with the disclosed fusion apparatus. See MPEP 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: As discussed above, examples are defined as and explained by theoretical possibilities and are not reliably-reproducible working examples. See MPEP 2164.02.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: The quantity of experimentation needed is infinite, as the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention, and the provided theoretical guidance is insufficient to enable one to understand the underlying sequence of phenomena required to attempt such an endeavor.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and the enablement requirement. Based on the above analyses, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention and fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility for the reasons set forth above. In the above analyses, Examiner has provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would reasonably doubt this asserted utility of the claimed invention. “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention’s asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.’” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Claims 1-7 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons set forth in the above analyses.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is the Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, it is unclear whether the Applicant had actual or constructive possession of the claimed apparatus at the time of filing. As discussed above, there is no evidence that the apparatus of the present invention is capable of causing a fusion reaction at any temperature, including temperatures significantly lower than those required for nuclear fusion, or that the invention is capable of producing a net energy output. There exist no fusion reactors to date that are capable of such reactions and the specification fails to describe distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are still further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the specification as well as in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, which are accordingly incorporated herein; as such, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The claims are replete with statements that are either essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use. For example, “the emitted energy, in response to being received at the tip of the tubular electrode, inducing, proximal to the tip of the tubular electrode, an oscillating flow of electrons oscillating in opposing directions primarily along a surface of the tubular electrode in a direction of a taper defining the tapering section, wherein the oscillating flow of electrons is (a) in a forward direction toward the tip and in a reverse direction away from the tip (b) occurs at a frequency of at least about 1 GHz and (c) creates an electric field greater than about 108 V/m at the tip” (claim 1), “said oscillating flow of the electrons is coherent and collective, the collective and coherent motion of electrons exhibiting superconductivity creating an area of high electron density configured to fuse the fusion fuel material, the fusing comprising a fusion reaction” (claim 1), “an occurrence of the fusion reaction being configured to produce current and/or voltage for generation of electricity” (claim 1), “wherein the electric field at the tip defines localized compression by ponderomotive forces, the localized compression being configured to lower the Coulomb barrier between two fusing atoms, the lowering of the Coulomb barrier being configured to induce, at or adjacent the tip, the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction” (claim 4), “wherein the fusion reaction ... is aneutronic” (claim 5), and “wherein the excitation source is configured to induce electrons of the are a of high electron density to comprise an electron density comprising 1015/cc or more” (claim 7). These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference as long as the structure of the cited references is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
The apparatus in the cited combination 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 references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2009/0086877 (“Hagelstein”) in view of WO Publication No. 2012/163966 (“Groeneweg”) and “Surface-plasmon-based electron acceleration” (“Irvine”).
Regarding claim 1, Hagelstein (previously cited) discloses an apparatus (500) comprising:
a tubular electrode (502, 504, 514, 516) comprising a pore-containing structure (31, 61) embedded with a fusion fuel material (25, 55) (FIGS. 17a, 19a, [0257], [0306]); and
an excitation source (FIG. 26b, [0344]-[0345]), the excitation source including one or more of a RF generator device, a microwave generator device, and a laser ([0313], [0345]); wherein:
the excitation source is configured to emit energy to an end of the tubular electrode (FIG. 26b, [0313], [0344]-[0345]).
Hagelstein does not appear to disclose a tapering section terminating in a tip of the tubular electrode. Groeneweg (previously cited) (see FIG. 2) is similarly directed towards an apparatus comprising a tubular electrode (9’) and an excitation source (15) for allegedly inducing fusion reactions (11:21-25). Groeneweg teaches the electrode may have a tapering section terminating in a tip of the tubular electrode (4:32-34, 5:13-16, 9:8-22). Groeneweg further teaches the tapered shape allows for a smooth field gradient (9:16-22). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to modify Hagelstein’s apparatus to have a tapering section, as taught by Groeneweg for the predictable advantage of producing a desired electric field and a desired electric field gradient. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Hagelstein’s electrode to have a tapering section, as suggested by Groeneweg, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component (see also Groeneweg, 5:13-16). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
While Hagelstein does not appear to explicitly disclose the excitation source is configured to induce an oscillating flow of electrons, Hagelstein establishes that increasing the energy and density of particles in the lattice structure would allegedly increase the probability of fusion reactions ([0066]-[0070], [0081], [0271], [0273], [0360], [0407]). Irvine (previously cited) (see FIGS. 1, 3, 9) is also directed towards applying an excitation source (“laser oscillator”) to an electrically conductive structure (“metal film”, “Ag film”) (p. 1: “employs femtosecond laser pulse excitation of surface-plasmon (SP) waves.... [A]n enhanced high-gradient evanescent electric field is formed at the surface of the metal film”). Irvine teaches the excitation source may include a laser and is configured to induce an oscillating flow of electrons oscillating in opposing directions along a surface of the structure, the oscillating flow of electrons occurs at a frequency of at least about 1 GHz and creates an electric field greater than about 108 V/m (p. 1: “femtosecond laser-based electron accelerators have demonstrated their feasibility, as such laser sources offer large electric fields (~1012 V/m)”; p. 4: “As expected, these local charges oscillate at a frequency equal to that of the incident laser radiation (375 THz)…. The oscillating nature of the SP wave is clearly evidenced by the ‘quivering’ motion of each sample electron trajectory”). Irvine further teaches inducing this electron oscillation using the excitation source provides an effective mechanism for low-energy electron acceleration, which enhances the electric field (p. 1: “SP waves to be an effective method for low-energy electron acceleration”; p. 2: “Localization of the wave to the small spatial region ... results in an increase in the energy density, which is manifested as a relative enhancement.... This enhancement of the electric field ... provides a large electromagnetic field gradient that is well suited for ponderomotive acceleration ... resulting in a net-time-averaged ponderomotive force and an overall gain in kinetic energy”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to induce the electron oscillation, as taught by Irvine, using the modified Hagelstein’s excitation source for the predictable advantage of accelerating low-energy electrons and increasing the electric field, which would allegedly increase the probability of fusion, as suggested by Hagelstein.
Hagelstein, modified to include the tapered electrode structure taught by Groeneweg and the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, teaches all of the recited structure in claim 1. Thus, if the apparatus of claim 1, having the claimed tubular electrode and excitation source, is allegedly capable of creating the claimed oscillating flow of electrons, creating the claimed area of high electron density configured to fuse the fusion fuel material, the fusing comprising a fusion reaction, and producing the claimed current and/or voltage for electricity generation from the fusion reaction, then it follows that the modified Hagelstein’s, also having the claimed tubular electrode and excitation source, would also be capable of achieving these alleged results (see also Hagelstein, [0273]; Groeneweg, 11:1-15).
Regarding claim 2, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hagelstein discloses the fusion fuel material comprises hydrogen-1, deuterium, or helium-3 nuclei (FIGS. 17a, 19a, [0257], [0306], [0312]).
Regarding claim 3, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hagelstein discloses the pore-containing structure forms a base structure (31, 61) comprising hafnium or tantalum (which are getter materials9) for hydrogen or low molecular weight gases ([0258]), and materials capable of supporting and carrying the fusion fuel material (FIGS. 17a, 19a, [0257]-[0258]).
Regarding claim 4, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Irvine teaches the electric field defines localized compression by ponderomotive forces (p. 2: “Launching of SP waves provides a relatively simple arrangement that fulfills the necessary requirements of ponderomotive acceleration…. This enhancement of the electric field, along with the exponential decay of ESP, provides a large electromagnetic field gradient that is well suited for ponderomotive acceleration,” p. 4: “The oscillating nature of the SP wave is clearly evidenced by the ‘quivering’ motion of each sample electron trajectory. A typical distance between inflection points of the most energetic electron in the sample set at ESP = 2.7 X 1011 V/m is calculated to be 36 nm suggesting that the effective ponderomotive force acts on a few hundred nanometer spatial scale”). As the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 4 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of lowering the Coulomb barrier and inducing, at or adjacent the tip, the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction, so is the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus. Therefore, Hagelstein’s apparatus, modified to include the tapered shape taught by Groeneweg and the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of lowering the Coulomb barrier between two fusing atoms and allegedly inducing, at or adjacent the tip, the fusing of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction.
Regarding claim 5, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 4. As the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 5 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of inducing an aneutronic fusion reaction, so is the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus. Therefore, Hagelstein’s apparatus, modified to include the tapered shape taught by Groeneweg and the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of inducing an aneutronic fusion reaction.
Regarding claim 6, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Hagelstein discloses the electrode is configured as a dipole antenna (516) (Fig. 26B, [0344]).
Regarding claim 7, Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 7 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of inducing electrons of the area of high electron density, so is the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus. Therefore, Hagelstein’s apparatus, modified to include the tapered shape taught by Groeneweg and the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of inducing electrons of the area of high electron density to comprise an electron density comprising 1015/cc or more.
Claims 1-5 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Groeneweg in view of Irvine.
Regarding claim 1, Groeneweg (see FIG. 2) discloses an apparatus comprising:
a tubular electrode (9’, 35) comprising a tapering section terminating in a tip of the tubular electrode (4:32-34, 5:13-16, 9:8-22), the tubular electrode comprising a pore-containing structure (e.g., tantalum, palladium) embedded with a fusion fuel material (2:18-24, 4:14-22, 10:27-34); and
an excitation source (15) (9:30-37), the excitation source including a laser (7:31-35, 10:19-34); wherein:
the excitation source is configured to emit energy to the tip of the tubular electrode, and the emitted energy, in response to being received at the tip of the tubular electrode, inducing, proximal to the tip of the tubular electrode, an oscillating flow of electrons (2:3-8, 6:3-19, 8:12-27, 11:1-15).
Groeneweg appears to be silent as to the frequency of the oscillating flow of electrons and the magnitude of the created electric field. Irvine (see FIGS. 1, 3, 9) is also directed towards applying an excitation source (“laser oscillator”) to an electrically conductive structure (“metal film”, “Ag film”) (p. 1: “employs femtosecond laser pulse excitation of surface-plasmon (SP) waves.... [A]n enhanced high-gradient evanescent electric field is formed at the surface of the metal film”). Irvine teaches the excitation source may include a laser and is configured to induce an oscillating flow of electrons oscillating in opposing directions along a surface of the structure, the oscillating flow of electrons occurs at a frequency of at least about 1 GHz and creates an electric field greater than about 108 V/m (p. 1: “femtosecond laser-based electron accelerators have demonstrated their feasibility, as such laser sources offer large electric fields (~1012 V/m)”; p. 4: “As expected, these local charges oscillate at a frequency equal to that of the incident laser radiation (375 THz)…. The oscillating nature of the SP wave is clearly evidenced by the ‘quivering’ motion of each sample electron trajectory”). Irvine further teaches inducing this electron oscillation using the excitation source provides an effective mechanism for low-energy electron acceleration, which enhances the electric field (p. 1: “SP waves to be an effective method for low-energy electron acceleration”; p. 2: “Localization of the wave to the small spatial region ... results in an increase in the energy density, which is manifested as a relative enhancement.... This enhancement of the electric field ... provides a large electromagnetic field gradient that is well suited for ponderomotive acceleration ... resulting in a net-time-averaged ponderomotive force and an overall gain in kinetic energy”). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to induce the electron oscillation, as taught by Irvine, using Groeneweg’s excitation source for the predictable advantage of accelerating low-energy electrons and increasing the electric field.
Groeneweg, modified to include the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, teaches all of the recited structure in claim 1. Thus, if the apparatus of claim 1, having the claimed tubular electrode and excitation source, is allegedly capable of creating the claimed oscillating flow of electrons, creating the claimed area of high electron density configured to fuse the fusion fuel material, the fusing comprising a fusion reaction, and producing the claimed current and/or voltage for electricity generation from the fusion reaction, then it follows that the modified Groeneweg, also having the claimed tubular electrode and excitation source, would also be capable of achieving these alleged results (see also Groeneweg, 11:1-15).
Regarding claim 2, Groeneweg in view of Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Groeneweg discloses the fusion fuel material comprises deuterium nuclei (9:32-37).
Regarding claim 3, Groeneweg in view of Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Groeneweg discloses the pore-containing structure forms a base structure comprising tantalum (which is a getter material10) for hydrogen or low molecular weight gases, and materials capable of supporting and carrying the fusion fuel material (2:18-24, 4:19-22).
Regarding claim 4, Groeneweg in view of Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Groeneweg discloses allegedly lowering the Coulomb barrier to induce a fusion reaction (11:1-25, 13:36-14:3) and Irvine teaches the electric field defines localized compression by ponderomotive forces (p. 2: “Launching of SP waves provides a relatively simple arrangement that fulfills the necessary requirements of ponderomotive acceleration…. This enhancement of the electric field, along with the exponential decay of ESP, provides a large electromagnetic field gradient that is well suited for ponderomotive acceleration,” p. 4: “The oscillating nature of the SP wave is clearly evidenced by the ‘quivering’ motion of each sample electron trajectory. A typical distance between inflection points of the most energetic electron in the sample set at ESP = 2.7 X 1011 V/m is calculated to be 36 nm suggesting that the effective ponderomotive force acts on a few hundred nanometer spatial scale”). As the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 4 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of lowering the Coulomb barrier and inducing, at or adjacent the tip, the fusion of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction, so is the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus. Therefore, Groeneweg’s apparatus, modified to include the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of lowering the Coulomb barrier between two fusing atoms and allegedly inducing, at or adjacent the tip, the fusion of the fusion material comprising the fusion reaction.
Regarding claim 5, Groeneweg in view of Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 4. As the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 5 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of inducing an aneutronic fusion reaction, so is the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus. Therefore, Groeneweg’s apparatus, modified to include the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of inducing an aneutronic fusion reaction.
Regarding claim 7, Groeneweg in view of Irvine teaches the apparatus of claim 1. As the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus includes all of the recited structure of claim 7 (see above), then, if Applicant’s apparatus is allegedly capable of achieving the recited desired result of inducing electrons of the area of high electron density, so is the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus. Therefore, Groeneweg’s apparatus, modified to include the electron oscillation taught by Irvine, would allegedly be capable of inducing electrons of the area of high electron density to comprise an electron density comprising 1015/cc or more.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either of (1) Hagelstein in view of Groeneweg and Irvine or (2) Groeneweg in view of Irvine, further in view of WO Publication No. 90/13897 (“Drexler”).
Alternatively, regarding claim 7, Drexler is also directed towards a fusion apparatus comprising a pore-containing structure embedded with a fusion fuel material. Drexel teaches the fusion fuel material has a particle density of 1015/cc or more (p. 9, ll. 10-30). Drexel further teaches this particle density allows for sufficient fusion fuel material storage in the lattice structure to allegedly produce fusion reactions and excess energy (p. 9, ll. 10-30). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to further modify either of the modified Hagelstein’s apparatus or the modified Groeneweg’s apparatus, in view of the fusion fuel material density teachings of Drexler, for the predictable purpose of storing enough fusion fuel material to allegedly produce net energy fusion reactions. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a POSA to have a density of 1015/cc or more since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering an optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. A POSA would have been aware that a particle density that was too low would not allegedly induce a fusion reaction.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objections to the specification and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a), Applicant does not appear to provide any new arguments (Response, p. 5) and instead relies upon Applicant’s arguments previously filed on 07/29/2025. As discussed in the prior Office actions, these arguments are not persuasive. Examiner’s prior responses to these arguments are therefore repeated herein (see Final Rejection dated 08/06/2025, paras. 51-61).
Applicant argues “regardless of whether fusion reactions occur at relatively low temperatures, the claimed apparatus has utility in generating electricity. That is, the claim does not recite any net production of energy – the conversion of fusion reaction heat to electricity constitutes a significant utility” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 6). The argued utility of “generating electricity” is achieved by the claimed fusion reactions. In other words, Applicant’s utility is the generation of electricity from fusion reactions. Thus, analysis of the utility requires an analysis of Applicant’s mechanisms for generating fusion reactions and the viability of fusion reactions at “relatively low temperatures” cannot be disregarded in said analysis.
Applicant further argues “the claimed invention does not recite anything regarding ‘production of energy.’” (emphasis in original) (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 6). Yet, independent claim 1 explicitly recites generating electricity: “an occurrence of the fusion reaction being configured to produce current and/or voltage for generation of electricity”. “Energy”, i.e., the ability to do work, exists in many different forms11. For example, electricity is a form of energy. Thus, Applicant’s recitations of “an occurrence of the fusion reaction ... configured to produce current and/or voltage” and “generation of electricity” are limitations directed towards the production of energy.
Applicant further argues “from the language of the Office action, the examiner appears to recognize and acknowledge that the claims also allow for embodiments that achieve nuclear fusion for utility other than ‘net energy production’ such as production of helium” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 9). Applicant has not, however, indicated the language of the Office action in which Examiner has “recognize[d] and acknowedge[d]” these other utilities and Examiner disagrees with this statement. The claims explicitly recite the alleged result of energy production from fusion reactions: “an occurrence of the fusion reaction being configured to produce current and/or voltage for generation of electricity” (claim 1). The claimed invention is therefore clearly directed towards generating fusion reactions in order to generate energy. The utility of energy production from fusion reactions is also clearly established by the disclosure ([0002], [0004], [0012], [0020], [0032], [0055], [0070], [0081]). Examiner notes, a utility must be specific and substantial. This requirement excludes “throw-away”, “insubstantial”, or “nonspecific” utilities. Examiner further notes, the alleged production of helium would first require achieving the fusion reactions. Since the claimed invention is unable to produce fusion reactions, the claimed invention would also be unable to produce helium.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding previously patented applications by the same inventor (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 9-14), Examiner notes, that the instant case is being judged on its own merits. The allowance of one case by an inventor/Applicant does not necessitate the allowance of another by the same inventor/Applicant. Further, in response to Applicant’s reproduction of remarks submitted in parent application no. 16/571,293 (“the ‘293 application”), Examiner notes that the reproduced remarks include responses to rejections or statements which were not made in the prior Office actions or above. For example, there is no discussion of the Fleishmann and Pons experiments in the rejections in the prior Office actions or above (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 11-12).
Applicant argues the present invention is not directed towards cold fusion which, according to Applicant, “as a whole is a loosely-defined field with a low degree of consensus on the specific physicochemical conditions” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 12). Applicant asserts the present invention is instead directed towards “suppression of the Coulomb barrier” and attempts to distinguish the present invention from cold fusion, stating that the present invention is not “‘a variation’ of F&P cold fusion” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 11-12) and that “Applicant has outlined a theory of electron-catalyzed fusion (ECF) that utilizes large electric fields to suppress the Coulomb barrier. This theory predicts specific experimental conditions that will produce fusion, and these experimental conditions have been tested to show evidence of fusion reactions” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 12). However, the field encompassed by “cold fusion” is not limited to experiments which are related to the Fleishmann and Pons experiments. While there are various mechanisms for allegedly producing cold fusion reactions, the determination as to whether a fusion system is a cold fusion (also referred to as “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), “low-temperature nuclear reactions,” or “warm fusion”) system is based on the temperatures (i.e., energies) and pressures at which the fusion reactions occur (or are alleged to occur).
As noted in the prior Office actions and further above, fusion reactions are known to require temperatures of 107-108 K in order to overcome the Coulomb barrier. Fusion reactions which occur at these extreme conditions are thermonuclear (or “hot”) fusion reactions. The only fusion systems to date which have successfully produced fusion reactions (such as the ITER and NIF systems mentioned in Applicant’s disclosure; see [0017]) are thermonuclear fusion systems. By contrast, fusion reactions which are hypothesized/alleged to occur at conditions other than these extreme conditions are cold fusion reactions. In other words, “cold fusion” describes any nuclear reaction which purportedly occurs at energies (i.e., temperatures) much lower than those known to be required.
Applicant discloses the reactions of the present invention “take place at room and elevated temperatures” and the present invention “provides for ambient temperature” ([0050]). These disclosed temperatures (e.g., generally well below 103K)12 are clearly many orders of magnitude below the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required for fusion reactions. Applicant therefore alleges a nuclear reaction (fusion) which can occur at temperatures (ambient or room temperature) much lower than those required for the reaction to occur (107-108 K), i.e., cold fusion. Not only is the alleged fusion reaction described as occurring at significantly lower temperatures ([0050]), but Applicant also does not provide any mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of 107-108 K known to be required to initiate fusion reactions. Thus, Applicant’s invention is further incapable of creating the conditions required for fusion and is therefore incapable of producing or sustaining fusion reactions, thermonuclear or cold.
Regarding Applicant’s declaration submission in parent application USAN 14/742,546 dated 04/12/2017 (the “Wong Declaration”) (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, pp. 9, 11), the evidence presented in the Wong Declaration is insufficient to overcome the specification objection and the 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of record. Evidence provided by Applicant must be relevant to the issues raised in the rejections. See MPEP 716. However, there is no nexus between the method described in the Wong Declaration and the method of the presently claimed invention. For example, the experiment described in the Wong Declaration (as also acknowledged in Applicant’s Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 11) required at least (1) an LaB6 emitter attached to an outer wall of a cylindrical diode serving as a boron-11 source, (2) a grounded, concentric, outer cylindrical electrode and a positively biased inner cylindrical electrode, with a centimeter-sized gap between the electrodes, (3) weakly ionized, low pressure hydrogen gas within the gap (Wong Declaration, paras. 8, 41), and (4) a superconducting solenoid magnet (Wong Declaration, para. 41). None of these features are recited in the present claims. In fact, the specification of the present invention explicitly states that the invention could allegedly successfully operate without any additional, induced, or provided magnetic fields ([0033], [0071]). Further, the conclusions alleged in the Wong Declaration are inconsistent with the evidence of record and current scientific knowledge as discussed in the prior action and below. Examiner therefore maintains that the totality of the record continues to show that the asserted utility is not specific, substantial, and credible and the specification does not provide an adequate written description or an enabling disclosure.
Regarding Applicant’s “letter from Dr. Ted Cremer” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 13), i.e., “Letter to CPO from POSITA, Dr. Jay Theodore (Ted) Cremer, Jr. (PHD)” filed on 01/24/2019 in parent application no. 14/742,546, the letter appears to be in response to a Canadian office action (see p. 1, Heading, address line, and sixth paragraph). Examiner notes this is the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which examines applications independent of the Canadian Patent Office. Additionally, while Applicant may submit evidence traversing a rejection or objection by way of an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, the letter appears to be neither an affidavit nor a declaration. The letter incorrectly states that “the patent examiner focused only upon the failed results of the Fleishmann and Pons experiments, and the failed attempts by others to replicate their results in the early 1990’s” (second to last paragraph). Again, as discussed above, neither Fleishmann & Pons nor their specific concept for cold fusion has been mentioned anywhere in the prior actions or above. Further, referring to at least pages 6-9 of the prior Office action, Examiner has provided evidence from as recently as 2022 that even hot fusion has not been able to produce net energy. Numerous times, the letter refers to the alleged results of the present invention theoretically: “The combination of high electric fields and ponderomotive forces … are most definitely expected to result in nuclear fusion” and “the invention would theoretically operate as described and claimed” (p. 1, emphasis added). The subsequent list of “distinguishing differences” in Dr. Cremer’s letter allegedly supporting that the present invention is not a cold fusion device appear to be directed towards specific modes of cold fusion, e.g., Fleishmann and Pons (see bullet 10). Nowhere in the list does Examiner see evidence that the present invention (1) does not involve fusion reactions or (2) that the fusion reactions occur at the temperatures required for fusion reactions to occur as discussed above and further below.
Regarding Applicant’s “CR-39 analyses” (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 13), filed on 04/18/2024, Applicant alleges the undated CR-39 report provides support for Applicant’s asserted utility (Remarks dated 07/29/2025, p. 13). However, Examiner can find no evidence that this report has been published anywhere, let alone published in any reputable journal. Further, the report was authored by Applicant themselves. However, reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. A report by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible. See also Ex parte Alfred Y. Wong, decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Application No. 16/757,941, pp. 19-20.
Applicant’s amendments to the claim overcome the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant argues “construction for combination for Groeneweg on Hagelstein cannot be piecemeal, and because of this, such lid would render Hagelstein unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (Response, pp. 6-7). However, nowhere does Examiner cite or refer to Groeneweg’s “lid” (29) (see Final Rejection dated 08/06/2025, para. 34) and it is unclear to Examiner why Applicant believes that modification of Hagelstein to have a tapered electrode shape as taught by Groeneweg would require the inclusion of Groeneweg’s “lid” (29). As noted in the prior Office action and above, Groeneweg teaches a tubular electrode (9’) for allegedly inducing fusion reactions, the electrode having a tapered shape (FIG. 2, 4:32-34, 5:13-16, 9:8-22). Groeneweg clearly and explicitly identifies the tapered shape of the electrode as providing the advantage of allowing for a smooth field gradient: “A conical cathode and/or further electrode, in particular when concentrically arranged may provide a smooth field gradient” (9:16-22). Thus, there is nothing in Groeneweg to suggest that Hagelstein must be further modified to include a “lid” in order to realize the advantageous effects of a smooth field gradient taught by Groeneweg.
Applicant further argues that because “Groeneweg may not be piecemeal constructed to ... lay aside Groeneweg’s lid” (Response, p. 7), “Applicant’s oscillation in accordance with Applicant’s embodiment as now claimed, cannot be taught or suggested by Groeneweg and Irvine, either when taken alone or in combination” (emphasis in original) (Response, p. 7). As best understood by Examiner, Applicant appears to be arguing that the tip of the modified Groeneweg’s electrode would not receive the emitted energy. However, again, Groeneweg clearly and explicitly discloses and shows the tip of the electrode (9’, 15) receives the emitted energy from the excitation source (15) (FIG. 2, 2:3-8, 6:3-19, 8:12-27, 11:1-15).
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02(VI).
Interview Information
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Contact Information
Examiner Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
3 https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition
4 https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/what-is-nif
5 https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st
6 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7
7 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a/full/
8 https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal
9 WO Publication No. 95/21447 (see p. 27, l. 30-p. 28, l. 4, p. 30, ll. 20-22)
10 WO Publication No. 95/21447 (see p. 27, l. 30-p. 28, l. 4, p. 30, ll. 20-22)
11 https://www.eia.gov/kids/what-is-energy/forms-of-energy.php
12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature