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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 21-22, 24, 35-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/15/2025.
The original presentation of this application, as defined in the elected claims, is directed towards a D-D nuclear fusion method for generating net-positive energy by capturing moderated neutrons in a sulfur and mercury blanket (see especially claims 1, 4, 11, and 20). While claim 2 lists other, non-fusion reactions, a review of the disclosure shows that these non-fusion reactions are either occurring after the initial fusion reaction (e.g., decay/exchange/bombarding reactions at ¶ 45, ¶ 47, and ¶¶ 50–55) or are only cursorily mentioned (e.g., fission at ¶ 47 and ¶ 62).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/12/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The 4/12/2024 IDS lists two Russian patents that Examiner cannot find accompanying said IDS. Please also review the rest of the IDSes and ensure they have appropriate accompanying attachments to avoid delays later in prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, “each said heat” should read “each of said heat”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–2, 4, 10–11, 16–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility.
In Brenner v. Manson, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) accordingly explains that the purpose of the utility requirement is “to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research.” MPEP § 2103, A., I.
Thus, the USPTO has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt an Appellant's presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “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)).
Here, the claims are directed to an approach to self-sustaining nuclear fusion.
Claim 1, for example, recites
A method of producing electrical power, the method comprising…creating neutrons via nuclear reactions … capturing said moderated neutrons with sulfur atoms to produce heat … converting water into steam; and generating electrical power with said steam.
Dependent claim 4 further delineates that the “nuclear reactions” are deuterium-deuterium (“DD” or “D-D”) fusion. Dependent claim 11 further defines the power output as net-positive.
The resulting electricity as recited in the claims is produced via self-sustaining nuclear fusion, which is known in the art as achieving ignition or breakeven and as meaning net-energy producing fusion where more power is output than was input1.
In the background of the Specification (¶¶ 1–9), Applicant acknowledges how all previous attempts at achieving said net-energy and commercially viable fusion reactors have failed:
“The vast majority of past attempts at generating electrical power from fusion reactions have contemplated boiling water to drive conventional turbines … These past attempts have often utilized strong magnetic fields to constrain plasmas of electrons and ions until the ions collide and fuse. Such magnetic containment is prone to instabilities and particle leakage, causing inadvertent and often catastrophic loss of energy that would otherwise be needed to sustain fusion reactions,” ¶ 1
“First, because electrons are much lighter than ions, electromagnetic collisions between electrons and ions tend to rob the ions of the kinetic energy needed for the fusion process. Second, these scattered electrons tend to be relativistic, emitting photonic radiation when they collide or accelerate. This photonic radiation is also a large source of energy leakage, robbing the plasma of the energy needed to sustain fusion reactions,” ¶ 2
“There is a class of nuclear fusion reactions referred to as aneutronic. In these reactions very little of the energy liberated by the reactions is in the form of kinetic energy in neutrons,” ¶ 3
“Large doses of OT fusion neutrons in metals cause embrittlement and dimensional changes, compromising the functionality and integrity of the reactor,” ¶ 5
“Accordingly, there is a need for improvement over such past approaches,” ¶ 9
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a method for producing net-energy nuclear fusion: “method of making…[a] power plant of output electrical power constructed so as to produce more of said output electrical power than electrical power input to the apparatus, e.g., by bringing into collision ions so as to induce fusion reactions…deuterium-deuterium (DD) fusion surrounded by a region of sulfur [for] producing such electrical power,” Specification at ¶ 17. Applicant’s specific asserted utility is a method of generating useful electricity from the excess heat and energy emanating from the world’s first-ever achievement of breakeven DD nuclear fusion, see the Specification at ¶¶ 57–59 and ¶ 65:
“The steam is then used in the step of electricity generating … result of electricity generating is the output of electrical power…the amount of output electrical power resulting from said electricity generating is greater than the total amount of electricity required … This condition is generally referred to as breakeven, or breakeven energy production …. Figure 1 illustrates a method of producing electrical power …. creating neutrons via nuclear reactions … moderating said neutrons … with sulfur atoms to produce heat .. heat exchanging … by converting water into steam; and generating electrical power with said steam,” ¶¶ 57–59
“One embodiment for net electrical power generation utilizing nuclear fusion is to induce fusion events by colliding a beam of deuterons (bare deuterium nuclei) with another beam of deuterons,” ¶ 65
While claim 2 lists other, non-fusion reactions, a close review of the disclosure shows that these are either occurring after and because of the initial fusion reaction (e.g., decay/exchange/bombarding reactions at ¶ 45, ¶ 47, and ¶¶ 50-55), or they are only cursorily mentioned (e.g., fission2 and “antimatter annihilation” at ¶ 47 and ¶ 62).
It is evident from the claims (specifically, claims 1, 4, 10, and 11) and the rest of the disclosure that the specific asserted utility is DD nuclear fusion ignition where the produced neutrons are moderated by a surrounding sulfur blanket such that their heat and energy are absorbed/captured to boil water to generate electricity.
The Specification repeatedly describes the fusion ignition as prophetic3 and does not detail experiments performed by Applicant or adequately relevant experiments performed by others. There is no disclosure of the specific mechanisms or operational parameters, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above. The disclosure summarily sets forth, as best Examiner can tell, that the inventive subject matter pertains to a sulfur blanket instead of the well-known prior art lithium blanket that surrounds a conventional fusion reactor chamber to absorb the errant neutrons (Specification at ¶¶ 33–34, 44). To this point, Examiner notes that the practice of using a lithium blanket to moderate neutrons (i.e., slow them down to energies at which they are more likely to be captured/absorbed by the blanket, thus more effectively depositing their heat/energy) is well-known in the art, e.g., see the background of WO2015021403 cited in the below 103 rejection section. While the absorption of fusion-produced neutrons in a lithium blanket is well-known in the art, these prior art reactors are not alleging net-positive energy. These reactors are used for tritium production and/or for medical radioisotope production, e.g., for small amounts of radionuclides vital for cancer treatment—they do not attempt, nor do they even allege to attempt, net-positive energy production. However, this application asserts net-positive energy production.
The scientific consensus per net-positive energy production via nuclear fusion weighs in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Presently available publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique capable of producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted by Dylla4, as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)—aspired to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.”
Further according to the official ITER5 webpage:
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to yield in its plasma a ten-fold return on power (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not convert the heating power it produces as electricity, but — as the first of all magnetic confinement fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain across the plasma (crossing the threshold of Q≥1) — it will prepare the way for the machines that can.”
There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational fusion system in the US to date that operates at extreme temperatures. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target. However, the laser system6 itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production—as stated by experts in the fusion community7,8.
When the most advanced thermonuclear fusion reactors in the world have yet to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims (e.g., claims 1, 4, 11) to be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates so efficiently as to be suitable for “breakeven energy production,” Specification at ¶ 58 or net-positive output energy (claim 11), would be considered highly questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures, such as those present on the Sun. Georgia State University9 explains:
“The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107–108 K.”
Applicants have failed to sufficiently disclose how the claimed fusion method is capable of sustaining a fusion reaction to achieve breakeven. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting self-sustaining nuclear fusion at odds with conventional best practices, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
The claimed invention—a type of nuclear fusion method in its early days of research—for generating and maintaining a fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”). Reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions—a recipe—that would enable a skilled artisan to produce and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community (i.e., outside of Applicant’s own prophecies) has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
In view of the above, it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would doubt the effective obtention of fusion ignition, i.e., the causing and the capability to generate electricity as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims. Rather, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that as of the effective date, the claimed method was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 1–2, 4, 10–11, 16–17, and 20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejection, which are incorporated herein. Applicant alleges the production of useful electricity from a self-sustaining—i.e., ignition or breakeven—nuclear fusion method. In order for such a method to exist, clearly, breakeven/ignition must first be achieved, anywhere in the world; independent scientists would then attempt to verify it via reproduction of the experiment(s). As detailed above, no laboratory on Earth has yet achieved nuclear fusion ignition.
The Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant's invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. See In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable, i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the Applicant.
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, first paragraph. 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.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–2, 4, 10–11, 16–17, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility for the same reasons set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (which are incorporated herein), one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1–2, 4, 10–11, 16–17, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejections, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 1–2, 4, 10–11, 16–17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains 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.
To be enabling, the disclosure, as filed, must be sufficiently complete to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and a use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of the claimed invention.
Applicant admits that previous, well-funded and decades-long attempts at producing viable nuclear fusion reactors have been unsuccessful (Specification, ¶¶ 1–9). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative system for achieving nuclear fusion for useful energy production, see Specification at ¶ 17.
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, the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, a determination that the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement. Specifically:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claims 1, 4, and 11) are very broad: a fusion reaction creates neutrons which are absorbed in a sulfur substance, resulting in the world’s first-ever net-positive nuclear fusion method. The disclosure does not supply adequate guidance for how the claimed result follows from the recited steps.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, is nuclear fusion.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses DD (deuterium-deuterium) nuclear fusion in a chamber surrounded by a lithium blanket; prior art DD fusion devices and methods require more input energy than they produce.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who can create and operate nuclear fusion reactors that do not produce net positive energy.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Thermonuclear fusion devices have failed to make serious advances towards practical applications after more than half a century of research. The skilled artisan would not predict any major advances or breakthroughs in the near future.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant’s disclosure does not provide the necessary step-by-step guide to actually achieve the claimed end goal of self-sustained/breakeven nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply suggests substituting known lithium blankets with a sulfur blanket.
(G) The existence of working examples: No working example or detailed experimental setup is provided; the disclosure repeatedly describes the invention as prophetic.
(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 unreasonable because the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “KR777” (KR 20090017777 A) in view of Kramer (WO 2015/021403).
Regarding claim 1, KR777 discloses a method of producing electrical power (“fission reactors…fusion reactors,” bottom of page 4), the method comprising: creating neutrons via nuclear reactions, said neutrons carrying neutron kinetic energy (“high neutron environments,” bottom of page 3); moderating said neutrons to thermal energies to produce moderated neutrons (KR777 discloses that their inventive steel may be used as a blanket for a fusion reactor, bottom of page 4), converting the neutron kinetic energy into heat (this occurs without operator interference or any active steps taken), and transmitting said heat to a heat exchanger (all nuclear reactors have heat exchangers as a matter of safety); creating ions via the nuclear reactions (this occurs without operator interference or any active steps taken), stopping the ions to produce heat (the existence of the steel blanket wall around the fusion reactions will necessarily stop some ions by its physical presence), and transmitting to said heat exchanger the heat generated by the stopping of the ions (all nuclear reactors have heat exchangers as a matter of safety; said heat exchangers necessarily absorb heat created within the chamber); capturing said moderated neutrons with sulfur atoms (the disclosed blanket comprises an amount of sulfur, e.g., see claim 1 at the top of page 8; as is known in the art, the blanket, also known as the first wall of the fusion reactor or the wall that is in physical contact with the plasma, performs the function of containment but also of moderating [also called slowing down, absorbing, or capturing], the neutrons created during the interior fusion reactions) to produce heat (heat results following interaction of the fusion neutrons with the blanket wall), and transmitting to said heat exchanger energy released by the capturing of said moderated neutrons (the heat exchangers necessarily absorb heat created within the chamber, ad some of this heat will necessarily come from moderating interactions between the neutrons and the blanket wall); transmitting energy from decaying radioisotopes created by the capturing of said moderated neutrons to said heat exchanger (the heat exchangers necessarily absorb heat created within the chamber, and some of this heat will necessarily come from radioactive decay).
KR777 teaches a fusion reactor but does not explicitly state that the created heat and energy boils water for electricity production.
Kramer does. Kramer is in the same art area of nuclear fusion reactors and teaches a nuclear fusion reactor (“LIFE,” ¶ 6) that creates heat and energy via fusion reactions, heat exchanging at least some of each of said heat and energy in a heat exchanger by converting water into steam; and generating electrical power with said steam (the LIFE reactor was intended to create heat and energy to boil water into steam using conventional steam turbine systems for electrical power production10).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to boil water for electricity production, as suggested by Kramer, using the fusion reactor of KR777 in order to produce usable power and tritium, which, as is known in the art, is a desirable isotope, as explained by Kramer in ¶¶ 3–6.
Regarding claim 2, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and KR777 additionally discloses wherein said nuclear reactions include at least one of fission reactions, fusion reactions, radioactive decay of one or more isotopes, antimatter annihilation reactions, reactions caused by bombarding atoms with energetic particles, nuclear exchange reactions, and reactions caused by energetic photons (“fusion reactors,” bottom of page 4).
Regarding claim 4, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this Kramer additionally teaches wherein said nuclear reactions comprise fusion reactions of deuterium nuclei with other deuterium nuclei (Kramer teaches D-T fusion, “LIFE” reactor, ¶ 6, which used D-T fuel11, during which D-D fusion will also occur, as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 10, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and KR777 additionally discloses wherein said moderating is performed by said sulfur atoms (the disclosed blanket comprises an amount of sulfur, e.g., see claim 1 at the top of page 8; as is known in the art, the blanket, also known as the first wall of the fusion reactor or the wall that is in physical contact with the plasma, performs the function of containment but also of moderating, or slowing down, the neutrons created during the interior fusion reactions).
Regarding claim 11, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this Kramer additionally teaches wherein said generating produces more electrical power than a total amount of electricity required to perform the steps of creating, moderating, stopping, transmitting, capturing, heat exchanging, converting, and generating (the LIFE reactor, ¶ 6, was intended to achieve ignition for electrical power production12).
Regarding claim 16, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and KR777 additionally discloses wherein said capturing is performed with sulfur atoms consisting essentially of the isotopes sulfur-32, sulfur-33, sulfur-34, and sulfur-36 atoms (sulfur comprises all of these isotopes in its natural abundance13).
Regarding claim 17, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this Kramer additionally teaches wherein said moderating is also performed with sodium atoms (the blanket may contain sodium, abstract). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filling date of the invention, to add sodium to the blanket, in order to provide a composition “for producing improved nuclear fusion performance [and] tritium breeding, while reducing challenges concerning chemical reactivity and fire hazards,” as explained by Kramer at ¶ 3.
Regarding claim 20, modified KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this Kramer additionally teaches wherein said capturing is also performed with mercury atoms (the blanket may contain mercury, abstract). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, before the effective filling date of the invention, to add mercury to the blanket, in order to provide a composition “for producing improved nuclear fusion performance [and] tritium breeding, while reducing challenges concerning chemical reactivity and fire hazards,” as explained by Kramer at ¶ 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 “Fusion “ignition” refers to the moment when a controlled fusion reaction generates more energy than is needed to spark the reaction: as much or more energy “out” than “in.”” <lasers.llnl.gov/science/ignition>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
2 Nuclear fission is the splitting of heavy atoms, which is the opposite of the fusion, or joining, of light atoms disclosed herein. These mechanisms are contrary to each other, and a mechanism for producing one would not be applicable to its opposite. See the Nuclear Regulatory definitions of fusion and fission, respectively: <nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/fusion-reaction> and <nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/fission-fissioning>. Both last accessed October 23, 2025.
3 e.g., see Spec. at ¶ 10, ¶ 42, ¶ 48, ¶ 50, ¶ 64, ¶ 70, ¶ 72, ¶ 74, and ¶ 75.
4 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
5 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
6 Achieving Fusion Ignition. <lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
7 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598.
8 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article.
9 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University webpage. <hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>. Last accessed October 24, 2025.
10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Inertial_Fusion_Energy
11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Inertial_Fusion_Energy
12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Inertial_Fusion_Energy
13 https://periodictable.com/Elements/016/data.html