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 claims 1-4 and 10-15 in the reply filed on 9/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 5-9 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/24/2025.
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 1-4 and 10-15 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—the 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 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 nuclear fusion which Applicants identify as enabled from filling an electrode chamber with hydrogen and adding energy. Claim 1, for example, recites:
A method to perform a controlled fusion reaction, the method comprising: providing a neutral gas within a gas chamber … supplying energy to the gas chamber … causing … causing … causing … causing … bombardment [that] enables the controlled fusion reaction.
Dependent claim 15 further delineates that the alleged fusion reaction is caused from the electrode comprising boron.
Applicant asserts that the present invention is for production of useful electricity from nuclear fusion (“…a fusion reactor that generates more fusion power such that fusion energy can become a commercially viable source of energy,” Specification, ¶ 12) and acknowledges the difficulties that have prevented previous attempts at doing so (e.g., “In practice, temperatures in excess of 150,000,000 degrees Celsius are required to achieve positive energy balance using a D-T fusion reaction. For a proton-boron based fusion reaction, the Lawson criterion suggests that a required temperature must be yet substantially higher,” Specification, ¶ 7).
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 achieving fusion yielding a positive energy output without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion1. For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core2. Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more. Applicant instead suggests abandoning the Lawson criterion entirely: “Therefore, designing of the fusion reactor based on Lawson criterion may not be feasible,” Specification at ¶ 7. Indeed, the claimed method when read in light of the Specification operates as significantly lower temperatures than would be needed for nuclear fusion to occur: “the plasma temperature is assumed to increase from, for example, 4000 K to about 5000 K,” ¶ 99. This is supported by the provisional application 63/255,382 from which the instant application claims priority at page 11, lines 223-224: “[T]he plasma temperature increases from 4000K to 5000K with the increasing of plasma kinetic energy.”
Applicants acknowledge that no one has yet created a commercially viable fusion reactor (“there is a need to develop a fusion reactor that generates more fusion power such that fusion energy can become a commercially viable source of energy,” ¶ 12) but assert precisely this specific utility:
“The method and the apparatus disclosed herein enables commercial viability of fusion reaction such that produced fusion energy can be used for, for example, obtaining heat, generating electricity, and so forth,” Specification, ¶ 49
“The method and the apparatus disclosed herein further enables design and construction of compact fusion reactors within which fusion reaction may occur. Such compact fusion reactors have reduced size and weight, are easy to handle, and have less complex design,” Specification, ¶ 49
“A method and an apparatus are provided herein in accordance with an example embodiment for initiating and maintaining a controlled fusion reaction,” Specification, ¶ 49
“The method and the apparatus disclosed herein enables performing aneutronic fusion reaction for generating clean energy,” Specification, ¶ 49
The Specification describes simulations based on the invention (see Spec. at ¶¶ 89-107), but does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above. The lack of any experimental results, or of any supporting evidence from a third party, also weigh in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter, if even operative, lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Current publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear or cold—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted Dylla3, 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 ITER4 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, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, 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 system5 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 community6,7.
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 to (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion device that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a device achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s device relies on simply supplying energy to a neutral (hydrogen) gas in a chamber with electrodes, claim 1, for nuclear fusion-induced element power production.
However, as is known by those having 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 University8 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 device for taking advantage of the “neutral gas” is capable of producing or sustaining a fusion reaction. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
To the contrary, the method of the instant invention operates at lower temperatures: “the plasma temperature is assumed to increase from, for example, 4000 K to about 5000 K,” ¶ 99. Applicant explicitly alleges “generating clean energy … at a substantially lower temperature,” Specification at ¶ 49. This is further supported by the provisional application 63/255,382 from which the instant application claims priority at page 11, lines 223-224: “[T]he plasma temperature increases from 4000K to 5000K with the increasing of plasma kinetic energy.”
As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s temperature is 4000 K – 5000 K. Therefore, Applicant’s invention appears to fit squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing net-positive “clean” energy for solving the fusion industry’s woes (e.g., see Spec. at ¶ 49) but without any of the consequences (e.g., the necessity of confining an extremely hot nuclear reaction without melting the reactor).
Applicant’s cold nuclear fusion allegedly occurs due to the creation of an “electrostatic potential profile comprising a plurality of dips and a plurality of peaks, wherein the protons … are accelerated towards the cathode at the plurality of potential peaks and bombardment of the accelerated protons … enables the controlled fusion reaction,” claim 1. However, a review of the scientific literature finds no support whatsoever for this desired result, let alone simply from energizing a hydrogen gas in an electrode chamber, as recited in claim 1.
For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, 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 for generating and maintaining an exothermic cold fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via the formation of an “electrostatic potential profile comprising … peaks [that] enables the controlled fusion reaction” (claim 1) 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 laboratory or simulations) 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 a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful 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 1-4 and 10-15 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. The production of commercial electricity via a net-positive cold nuclear fusion is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (e.g., “generating clean energy … at a substantially lower temperature … enables commercial viability … generating electricity,” ¶ 49). Applicant’s invention is disclosed as operating at energy ranges (“4000 K to about 5000 K,” ¶ 99) many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion. The ordinary skilled artisan would find it more likely than not that Applicant’s invention was neither (a) net-energy-producing hot fusion, nor (b) cold fusion because, as detailed above: regarding (a), net-energy-producing hot nuclear fusion has never yet been observed; and regarding (b), cold fusion is considered unworkable by the scientific community. 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 1-4 and 10-15 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 1-4 and 10-15 are further 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 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the best mode contemplated by the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the disclosure of the Wong (US 2014/0219407 A1) publication cited herein. Wong discloses a reactor having a hydrogen chamber with electrodes as a source of cold fusion energy, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown, this method remains unproven and unworkable for the purposes of useful electricity generation. Accordingly, if Applicant's cold fusion device is operative, while Wong’s is not, then the Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant's disclosure that makes Applicant's invention operative.
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are further 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 asserts they have produced an operative device for achieving controlled nuclear fusion for useful electricity production (claim 1 and Specification at ¶ 49) in a low-temperature environment (Specification at ¶ 49 and ¶ 99).
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 claim 1) are very broad: a hydrogen chamber supplies energy to its electrode, followed by four desired-result type “causing…” clauses, resulting in the world’s first-ever net-positive nuclear fusion method (“…enables the controlled fusion reaction,” claim 1).
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
(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 using conventional technology that do not produce net positive energy.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
(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 asserts that the invention operates as alleged due to “electrostatic…peaks” bombarded by protons (e.g., end of ¶ 50 of the Specification).
(G) The existence of working examples: The Specification describes simulations based on the invention (see Spec. at ¶¶ 89-107), but does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion. Nor is there evidence that the provided example has been reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support.
(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 above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are the same as those found missing in the above best mode rejection.
Claim 1 at lines 4+ recites a supplying step followed by a colon and a heating step, flowed by a causing step that is the same indentation level as the supplying step. It is unclear if the heating step is intended to be at the same indentation level as the supplying and causing steps, or if the heating step is a subset of the supplying step. If the latter is correct, then the heating step should be further indented underneath the supplying step. Put another way, it is unclear if the four subsequent causing steps are occurring because of the supplying energy or because of the heating of the cathode. See also claim 10, where possibly “the heating of the cathode” and “superconducting magnet source” should each be further indented under “applying” and “the heating source comprises,” respectively.
In lines 2-3 in claim 1, it is twice recited that there is a neutral gas within a gas chamber. It is unclear if this was intended to be repeated—is this not the same gas and the same gas chamber?
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of potential peaks” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “applying a heating source across the gas chamber to perform at least: the heating of the cathode, and ionization of the neutral gas into the protons and the electrons.” However, these steps were already recited in parent claim 1. It is unclear if these steps are being repeated intentionally to achieve claim 10.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As laid out in the below Note from the Examiner about Desired Result-type Limitations, there is nothing in claims 2–4 except clauses that are simply expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
A Note from the Examiner about Desired Result-type Limitations
MPEP 2111.04 explains: “[T]he court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited9.’"
This portion of the MPEP is being applied to interpret claims in the instant application. These claims are replete with statements of desired results. These statements are identified by the Examiner and interpreted in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 as cited below:
“…wherein the supplying of the energy initiates at least: heating of the cathode, and ionization of the neutral gas into protons and electrons,” claim 1
“…causing formation of a conducting channel, due to the ionized neutral gas,” claim 1
“…causing formation of an electron layer outside an outer surface of the cathode, based on a set of thermionically emitted electrons by the heated cathode,” claim 1
“…causing acceleration of the electrons from the ionized neutral gas towards the cathode, due to a potential associated with the electron layer, to cause the heated cathode to emit a set of secondary electrons wherein the emitted set of secondary electrons enhances a strength of the electron layer,” claim 1
“…causing formation of an electrostatic potential profile within the conducting channel due to an electron-ion two-stream instability, the electrostatic potential profile comprising a plurality of dips and a plurality of peaks, wherein the protons from the ionized neutral gas are accelerated towards the cathode at the plurality of potential peaks and bombardment of the accelerated protons into the cathode enables the controlled fusion reaction,” claim 1
“…causing an initial discharge current to heat the cathode and ionize the neutral gas,” claim 2
“…causing formation of a first potential dip of the plurality of potential dips, due to the set of thermionically emitted electrons by the heated cathode,” claim 2
“causing acceleration of the electrons between a region associated with the first potential dip and the cathode to bombard the cathode, wherein the region lies between the anode and the cathode,” claim 3
“causing emission of the set of secondary electrons, due to the bombardment of the accelerated electrons at the cathode,” claim 3
“causing strengthening of the electron layer, at the first potential dip of the plurality of potential dips, due to the set of secondary electrons emitted by the cathode,” claim 3
“causing formation of the electrostatic potential profile within the conducting channel, due to the strengthened electron layer, the conducting channel with the electrostatic potential profile being associated with the formation of the enhanced electron layer and the strengthened first potential dip,” claim 3
“causing emission of the set of thermionically emitted electrons, due to the heating of the cathode, the set of thermionically emitted electrons being emitted from the surface of the cathode into the region associated with the first potential dip,” claim 4
“causing formation of the electron layer having a negative charge density locally outside the surface of the cathode,” claim 4
These clauses do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed process over that of the applied reference(s), as long as the process of the cited reference(s) is (allegedly) capable of achieving the desired result.
In this case, the cited process in the below-applied references is allegedly capable of being used for the above-cited intended use/desired result statements. In other words, if Applicant’s claimed process of “supplying energy to the gas chamber” (claim 1) is (allegedly) capable of achieving the subsequent “causing” desired effects, then so is that of the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–4, 10, and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2014/0219407 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method to allegedly perform a controlled fusion reaction, the method comprising: providing a neutral gas within a gas chamber (“supplying hydrogen gas into said cylindrical chamber,” claim 1), the gas chamber comprising an anode (8, Fig. 1) and a cathode (6/7, Fig. 1; “electron emitter,” claim 1) and neutral gas dispersed within the gas chamber; supplying energy to the gas chamber (“providing electrical power,” claim 1), wherein the supplying of the energy initiates at least: heating of the cathode, and ionization of the neutral gas into protons and electrons (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); causing formation of a conducting channel, due to the ionized neutral gas (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); causing formation of an electron layer outside an outer surface of the cathode, based on a set of thermionically emitted electrons by the heated cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); causing acceleration of the electrons from the ionized neutral gas towards the cathode, due to a potential associated with the electron layer, to cause the heated cathode to emit a set of secondary electrons wherein the emitted set of secondary electrons enhances a strength of the electron layer (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); and causing formation of an electrostatic potential profile within the conducting channel due to an electron-ion two-stream instability, the electrostatic potential profile comprising a plurality of dips and a plurality of peaks, wherein the protons from the ionized neutral gas are accelerated towards the cathode at the plurality of potential peaks and bombardment of the accelerated protons into the cathode enables the controlled fusion reaction (“fusion,” claim 1; as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s).
Regarding claim 2, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses causing an initial discharge current to heat the cathode and ionize the neutral gas (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); and causing formation of a first potential dip of the plurality of potential dips, due to the set of thermionically emitted electrons by the heated cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s).
Regarding claim 3, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses causing acceleration of the electrons between a region associated with the first potential dip and the cathode to bombard the cathode, wherein the region lies between the anode and the cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); causing emission of the set of secondary electrons, due to the bombardment of the accelerated electrons at the cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); causing strengthening of the electron layer, at the first potential dip of the plurality of potential dips, due to the set of secondary electrons emitted by the cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); and causing formation of the electrostatic potential profile within the conducting channel, due to the strengthened electron layer, the conducting channel with the electrostatic potential profile being associated with the formation of the enhanced electron layer and the strengthened first potential dip (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s).
Regarding claim 4, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses causing emission of the set of thermionically emitted electrons, due to the heating of the cathode, the set of thermionically emitted electrons being emitted from the surface of the cathode into the region associated with the first potential dip (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s); and causing formation of the electron layer having a negative charge density locally outside the surface of the cathode (as noted in the above Desired Results section, this limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited and is therefore not given patentable weight; additionally, since Wong discloses each and every positively recited method step, then if the claimed method steps are allegedly capable of achieving this intended result, so too would Wong’s).
Regarding claim 10, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the method further comprises: applying a heating source (11, Fig. 1) across the gas chamber to perform at least: the heating of the cathode (6/7), and ionization of the neutral gas into the protons and the electrons, wherein the heating source comprises at least one of: superconducting magnet source (11, Fig. 1), permanent magnet source, electromagnet source, radiofrequency (RF) source, microwave source, electric field source, electrode source, laser source, ion gun source, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the neutral gas comprises at least hydrogen (H2) gas (“supplying hydrogen gas into said cylindrical chamber,” claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the gas chamber is energized by externally applying a voltage in a range of 10 Volts to 1000 Volts (“a voltage of 1 KV,” ¶ 40).
Regarding claim 15, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the cathode (6/7, Fig. 1) comprises a boron rich material, the boron-rich material comprising at least one of: lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) (“wherein the electron emitter comprises lanthanum hexaboride,” claim 2), cerium hexaboride (CeB6), lithium boride, pure boron, or boron nitride, and wherein the cathode (6/7) provides boron (7) for the controlled fusion reaction.
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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong.
Regarding claim 11, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose wherein a diameter of the conducting channel is in a range of 0.01 millimeters to 1 millimeter. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the diameter to be within this range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Wong anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose wherein a density of the neutral gas is in a range of 1 x 1020 to 1 x 1025 m-3. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the density to be within this range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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.
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.
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.
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
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited October 27, 2025).
2 Id.
3 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
4 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>
5 https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition
6 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
7 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
8 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
9 Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).