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
During a telephone conversation with Michael G. Smith on 9/25/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, the system for He-3 manufacture Claims 1-9. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-16, directed at a method for forming He-3, were withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the term “high pressure” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the sake of compact prosecution, it is understood that the target includes a gas.
Regarding Claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 4 requires that the target be a substance with a stable hydride “such as titanium”. It is not clear whether the claim accordingly requires Titanium or not. For the purpose compact prosecution, it is understood that the target is not limited to titanium, but may be any substance. Further, Claim 4 requires that the target be “chemically combined” with a substance “forming a stable hydride”. It’s unclear what is intended by “chemically combined”; that is, whether the target and substance are reacted or merely mixed. It is also unclear whether the claim requires that the target forms a stable hydride with the substance or whether the substance is merely capable of forming a stable hydride without reference to the target. Additionally, Claim 4 requires that the beam “does not react” with the substance/target. However, every atomic species and composition will react with a beam of protons at a certain threshold of energy. Consequently, it is unclear whether the claim is requiring a material that operates outside the boundaries of the current general understanding of nucleosynthesis (that is, that there is no ceiling of energy for a proton beam to induce a reaction in the target/substance react) or whether the claims requires a composition exposed to a limited range of proton beam energy in which the composition will not react. It is also unclear whether the claim is requiring the combined target/composition will not react, or whether the substance will not react with the beam of protons. Given all of the above, for the purposes of compact prosecution, it is understood that the instant claim requires that the target is combined with a substance, whereby the combination is not a chemical reaction that transforms either the target or the substance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chillery (Dissertation Thesis).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, shown above is Fig. 5.3 of Chillery, for convenience. Chillery teaches an experimental set-up for measuring the reaction of 6Li with a beam of protons and the resulting emission of 7Be and 3He nuclei (Pg. 49, Para. 1). Chillery teaches that a RF-ion source, understood to be proton gun, provides a beam of H+ is accelerated and then directed by a 45° magnet, which is understood to be a beam transport system, into the second beamline, which provides for a solid target of 6Li (Pg. 50, Para. 3). Chillery teaches that the electrostatic accelerator has a high voltage power supply system connected to the ion source (Pg. 49, Para. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Chillery teaches that the particle accelerator has a steerer magnet and a quadrupole magnet (a focusing magnet) (Pg. 51, para. 1). Additionally, Chillery teaches a faraday cup with optimal settings, which ensures the beams alignment (Pg. 51, para. 1), which is understood to be equivalent to a waveguide insofar as it functions to guide the beam of protons to the target.
Regarding Claim 4, Chillery teaches the use of a 6Li-enriched target composed of Li2O or Li2WO4 backing, understood to be the stage (Pg. 3, Para. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chillery (Dissertation Thesis), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Moscoso et. al. “Bayesian Estimation of the D(p,γ) 3 He Thermonuclear Reaction Rate” The Astrophysical Journal, 923:49 (15pp), 2021.
Regarding Claim 3, Chillery teaches that the first beamline may be used for gas-target experiments (Pg. 50, Para. 3).
However, Chillery does not teach that a beam of protons is accelerated into a gas target to produce 3He.
Moscoso teaches a theoretical model for predicting the production of light nuclides following the 20 minute period after the big bang (abstract). Moscoso collates the experimental results from 11 different particle collider experiments to assess the D(p,γ)3He reaction, which shows the acceleration and collision of a beam of protons with a deuterium target in order to form 3He (Pg. 10, Section 6; Appendix A demonstrating the varying beamline setups disclosed for each data set used to form Moscoso’s model).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified the first beamline target in the linear particle accelerator of Chillery with the gaseous target of deuterium, as per Moscoso, in order to arrive at a linear particle accelerator that uses a gas target to produces 3He.
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Dissertation Thesis), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Dabiri (US 5037602 A).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Chillery teaches to Claim 1 above.
However, Chillery does not teach the use of a controller, which is a computer with a hardware, external to the particle accelerator and designed to control the particle accelerator.
Dabiri teaches a system for forming radioisotopes by bombardment with helium (abstract).
Dabiri teaches that a computer, with hardware and software, provides instruction to the particle accelerator system and targetry systems (Col. 14, Lines 36-56). Dabiri teaches that the control system gives automated function for : system startup, component monitoring, run programming, and continuous monitoring of operating parameters (Col. 14, Lines 36-46).
Prior to the filing of the present invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporated the computer guided control systems for the radioisotope production apparatus, as per Dabiri, into to the apparatus of the linear particle accelerator of Chillery, in order to monitor, control, and set the parameters and functionality of the componentry in a particle collider apparatus.
Regarding Claim 9, Chiller teaches to Claim 6 as shown above. Further, the courts have held broadly that a device being portable or movable is insufficient to distinguish above the prior art unless new and unexpected results occurs (MPEP 2144.05 V A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL J DOWNES whose telephone number is (571)272-1141. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
NATHANAEL JASON. DOWNES
Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/NATHANAEL JASON DOWNES/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/BRIAN W COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759