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 with traverse of Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 11/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not established the species being “independent or distinct” or having a serious search burden, and the claims are similar. This is not found persuasive because this application is restricted under PCT rules, which do not use the framework of “independent or distinct” or having a serious search burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-17 and 20-22 are withdrawn.
Claims 1–2, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 are examined herein.
The original presentation of this application, as defined in the elected claims in light of the Specification, is directed towards a D-D nuclear fusion method for generating heat (and thus steam) by capturing moderated neutrons in a sulfur and sodium blanket that functions as a battery, said steam turning a turbine to output net-positive energy (see claims 1, 27, 28, and 30).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/31/2023 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. This IDS lists a 10-page EPO publication that was not attached. Please also review the rest of the IDSes and ensure they have appropriate accompanying attachments to avoid delays later in prosecution. Due to the thousands of pages submitted, Examiner has made a cursory review. If there are references Applicant believes are of particular relevancy per the instant invention, Examiner asks that these be pointed out in the next Response.
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the 07/15/2025 substitute Specification is accompanied by a letter (see page 3 of the 07/15/2025 Preliminary Amendment) stating that both a marked-up Specification and a clean Specification are attached. However, only the clean version was attached. Please submit the marked-up version of the 07/15/2025 Specification.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in ¶ 140, the electrolyte is written as b**-alumina. Is this supposed to read bet-alumina?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that the comma following “species” should be deleted; additionally, since “one species” is ostensibly singular, the verbs following this subject should be “induces” and “produces”. Additionally, claim 30 says “in” instead of “is.” Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "104" and "80" have both been used to designate the sulfur blanket.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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 for self-sustaining nuclear fusion.
Claim 1, for example, recites
an electrical power plant that produces output electrical power…induce nuclear fusion reactions and thereby produce more of said output electrical power than electrical power input.
Dependent claim 18 reiterates that the nuclear fusion produces net positive output electricity. Dependent claims 27 and 30 further delineate that the excess energy produced may be captured and stored in a surrounding sulfur blanket “battery”.
The claimed electricity is produced via self-sustaining nuclear fusion, which is known in the art as achieving ignition or breakeven and which means net-energy producing fusion where more power is output than was input1. Applicant confirms this meaning in the Specification at ¶ 60: “…net electrical power generation defined as excess output electrical power beyond the electrical power devoted to operate the power plant.”
In the background of the Specification (¶¶ 2–10), Applicant acknowledges how all previous attempts at achieving net-energy, commercially viable fusion reactors have failed:
“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,” ¶ 2
“This photonic radiation is also a large source of energy leakage, robbing the plasma of the energy needed to sustain fusion reactions,” ¶ 3
“In these reactions very little of the energy liberated by the reactions is in the form of kinetic energy in neutrons…post several problems…neutrons…often escape at thermal velocities,” ¶ 4
“Fusion reactors employing DT fusion require large inventories of tritium fuel. In addition, since tritium is very rare and not found in nature, tritium fuel needs to be "bred" in blankets composed of lithium…tritium loss rates far beyond those traditionally deemed acceptable are expected,” ¶ 8
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented an apparatus for producing net-energy nuclear fusion using the same setup (steam-driven turbine) acknowledged in ¶ 2 as being inadequate: “[T]his instant application teaches an electrical power plant configured to produce…more of said output electrical power than electrical power input…by said nuclear fusion reactions…a turbine that converts said steam into rotational energy and a generator coupled to said turbine that converts said rotational energy into said output electrical power,” Specification at ¶ 78. Claim 1 mirrors this mechanism: an electrical power plant that produces…more of said output electrical power than electrical power input…by said nuclear fusion reactions…a turbine that converts said pressurized steam into rotational energy and a generator coupled to said turbine that converts said rotational energy into said output electrical power.” Applicant’s specific asserted utility is therefore an apparatus for generating useful electricity including surge capacity from the excess heat and energy emanating from the world’s first-ever achievement of breakeven DD nuclear fusion, see the Specification at ¶¶ 56–58, ¶ 60, and ¶¶ 135–138 respectively:
“The disclosure includes an apparatus comprising a power plant [002] producing output electrical power [082] in a construction to bring into collision [018] one species of ions so as to induce nuclear fusion reactions and thereby produce more of said output electrical power [082] than electrical power input to the apparatus…. Moreover, this disclosure describes an apparatus [002] which absorbs neutron [032] kinetic energy and then captures said neutrons [032] in order to convert potential energy stored in a blanket [080] into additional nuclear energy available for conversion into output electrical power”.
“One embodiment for net electrical power generation…is to induce fusion events by colliding a beam of deuterons (bare deuterium nuclei) with another beam of deuterons”.
“The problem is that the availability of harvested power does not necessarily coincide with the instantaneous energy demands of consumers….One embodiment is to place an electrical battery between the electrical power plant [002] and an electrical load in order to provide such surge capacity”.
The Specification repeatedly describes the fusion ignition as prophetic2 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 alleged.
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 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 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 (e.g., claims 1 and 18) to already be in possession of a nuclear fusion device that outputs net-positive energy 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 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 fusion device is capable of sustaining a fusion reaction to achieve breakeven. The disclosure provides no mechanism for 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 device 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 net output 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, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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 device. In order for such a device 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 self-sustained nuclear fusion.
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, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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 Matsumoto (WO 2019138452 A1) publication cited below. Matsumoto discloses a fusion reactor allegedly producing power from ion beam collisions, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown, this device remains unproven and unworkable for the purposes of useful electricity generation. Accordingly, if Applicant's fusion device is operative to produce net output energy, while Matsumoto’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 1–2, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 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, ¶¶ 2–10). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative system for achieving nuclear fusion for useful energy production and even excess energy to be stored for future demand, see especially claims 1, 27, and 30.
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, 27, 28, and 30) are relatively broad: a fusion reaction creates neutrons whose heat powers a turbine, with excess heat being stored in a sulfur-sodium blanket, i.e., the world’s first-ever net-positive nuclear fusion device. 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 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 blankets with a sulfur-sodium battery-type 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.
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 1–2, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–2, 4–5, 18–19, and 23–31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structures are: the structures that make Applicant’s fusion apparatus operative to produce net output power, while all those in the prior art are not operative. This rejection is related to the above 112(a) best mode rejection. The Examiner can only conclude that if Applicant’s apparatus is operative, but Matsumoto’s (WO 2019138452 A1) is not, then there must be omitted elements that are critical or essential to the invention.
The phrase “in a manner” in claim 1 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “in a manner” 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. It is unclear to what degree, if any, ambient magnetic fields may be active or simply present during the claimed “focus[ing]” of ions. Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); see also Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373, 112 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding the claim phrase "unobtrusive manner" indefinite because the specification did not "provide a reasonably clear and exclusive definition, leaving the facially subjective claim language without an objective boundary"). MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 2 is rejected for similar language as described immediately above.
The phrase “about an equal average kinetic energy” in claim 19 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “about an equal average kinetic energy” 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. This phrase is additionally unclear because it does not recite to what the average kinetic energy is equal.
The phrase “about 180 degrees” in claim 19 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “about 180 degrees” 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. It is unclear what amount of deviation from 180 degrees is acceptable, and thus the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
In claim 19, it is unclear if each of the two recited particle beams must fulfill all four clauses, or if the combination of the two particle beams must fulfill the four clauses. In other words, if one beam comprises deuterons and the other beam comprises tritons, then the “two particle beams” comprises deuterons, even if only one of them does.
Claim 24 recites “intermediary vacuum valves” but then claim 26 recites “intermediate vacuum valves.” It is unclear if these are the same or different valves.
Claim 1 recites “one or more blankets” but then recites “the blanket.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the latter limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites “said blanket.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. See also claims 28 and 30.
In claim 29, it is unclear if the “a reservoir” is intended to be a required feature in the claim because it is not positively recited.
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.
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, 2, 19, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (WO 2019138452 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an apparatus comprising: an electrical power plant (e.g., Fig. 4) that allegedly produces output electrical power (“generate electricity,” Fig. 4) by bringing particle beams of ions into collisions, wherein the ions are ions of one species that induce nuclear fusion reactions (“nuclear fusion,” abstract) and thereby produce more of said output electrical power than electrical power input to the electrical power plant, said electrical power plant including: one or more sources of said ions (68); one or more negatively charged electrodes (e.g., 73e) arranged to define an electrostatic field that: accelerates said ions to kinetic energies sufficient to induce said nuclear fusion reactions (“nuclear fusion,” abstract); focuses said ions into said collisions (e.g., “fusion-produced charged particles…are also mixed in the ion recovery path,” page 11) in a manner devoid of magnetic fields (see above indefiniteness rejection); and decelerates positively charged particles formed by said nuclear fusion reactions (“The fusion-produced charged particles…decelerated,” page 12); one or more blankets (e.g., 67T) having a material composition and thickness that: harvests kinetic energy from neutrons (n) formed by said nuclear fusion reactions, said harvested kinetic energy converted into heat (“neutron heat conversion,” page 14); produces additional nuclear energy by capturing said neutrons (as detailed on page 14); converts said additional nuclear energy into additional heat within the blanket (id.); and accumulates as yet additional heat any remaining kinetic energy of said positively charged particles after said positively charged particles are decelerated (“The fusion-produced charged particles…decelerated,” page 12); and a transformer (e.g., conversion detailed at top of page 21) configured to transform that transforms said heat, said additional heat, and said yet additional heat within said blanket into said output electrical power, said transformer including: a heat exchanger (67Q or 89) that accepts water and produces pressurized steam from the water (see turbine 86); a turbine (86) that converts said pressurized steam into rotational energy; and a generator (88) coupled to said turbine that converts said rotational energy into said output electrical power (E).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the apparatus is devoid of a magnetic field that constrains a plasma comprised of said ions brought into said collisions (see above indefiniteness rejection; additionally, Matsumoto’s apparatus utilizes, in at least one embodiment, an accelerator, and thus magnetic fields are not required to force the claimed collisions).
Regarding claim 19, Matsumoto anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the particle beams of ions comprise two particle beams (D and D as shown in Fig. 1a), that: consist essentially of no electrons (only protons and neutrons, as shown in Fig. 1a), have about an equal average kinetic energy (each beam is at 0.5 MeV, as shown in Fig. 1a), comprise deuterons (“D” as shown in Fig. 1a), and collide at an angle of about 180 degrees (as shown in Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 31, Matsumoto anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses thermal insulation (as shown in Figure 9B) around said blanket (e.g., 67T).
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.
Claims 4, 18, 24, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Jackson (US 2007/0114380).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses a vacuum vessel (55) that has a substantially spherical shape (e.g., fig. 15), a vessel wall (e.g., fig. 15), and a central region, the vacuum vessel structured to contain a vacuum (“a vacuum container,” page 6); said negatively charged electrodes constructed arranged as a central, substantially spherical, electrode assembly concentric with said vessel wall, positioned such that said particle beams collide in said central region of said vacuum vessel (as described above in response to claim 1); an electrode charger (e.g., “pulsed high voltage,” page 11) that maintains a voltage of said electrode assembly; and at least one vacuum pump (e.g., 76h).
Matsumoto does not explicitly suggest the vacuum pump is an ion sputter vacuum pump. Jackson does. Jackson is also in the art area of chambers for nuclear fusion and teaches (Fig. 3) an ion sputter pump (312). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this type of pump, before the effective filing date of the invention, because they have no moving parts and thus are suitable for applications where minimal vibration is desired, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim and additionally teaches wherein said vessel wall is at a temperature above 400 degrees Celsius while said electrical power plant is generating output electrical power (as is known in the art, nuclear fusion reaches temperatures much higher than 400 degrees Celsius on the first wall).
Regarding claim 24, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Jackson additionally teaches that the sputter ion pumps (312, Fig. 3) are attached to the vacuum via intermediary vacuum valves (310). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use this arrangement because it “prevents atmospheric hydrogen and other gases from inducing charged particle losses,” as explained in ¶ 43.
Regarding claim 25, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Jackson additionally teaches heaters in thermal contact with said sputter ion pumps capable of inducing outgassing of helium and hydrogen isotopes (as described in ¶ 25). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use this arrangement because it “prevents atmospheric hydrogen and other gases from inducing charged particle losses,” as explained in ¶ 43.
Regarding claim 26, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Jackson additionally teaches one or more roughing pumps connected to said sputter ion pumps via intermediate vacuum valves (sputter ion pumps require roughing pumps to operate, as is known in the art). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a sputter ion pump for the reasons described above in response to claim 4.
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto and Jackson, as combined above, further in view of Mills (US 2020/0403555).
Regarding claim 5, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the claimed electrode assembly, as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose a coating. Mills does. Mills is also in the art area of fusion chambers and teaches (Fig. 2l12) an electrode assembly (8) that is coated with a carbon compound (e.g., “graphite coated conductor such as…graphite coated W,” ¶ 465). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this coating, before the effective filing date of the invention, in order to make a “structure that may be very durable for wear,” as explained by Mills in ¶ 465.
Regarding claim 23, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with Jackson teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the vessel wall, as cited above, but does not explicitly teach a coating. Mills does. Mills is also in the art area of fusion chambers and teaches (Fig. 2l21) a vessel wall (26) whose inside surface has a graphite coating (¶ 503). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this coating, before the effective filing date of the invention, in order to make the wall “resistant” to “adherence” from the species inside it, as explained in ¶ 503.
Claims 27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of “KR777” (KR 20090017777A).
Regarding claim 27, Matsumoto anticipates all the elements of the parent claim including the blanket (e.g., 67T), as cited above. Matsumoto does not explicitly state that the blanket may comprise sulfur.
KR777 does. KR777 is also in the art area of fusion reactors and teaches a blanket for a fusion reactor (the inventive steel may be used as a blanket for a fusion reactor, bottom of page 4) that comprises sulfur (“sulfur,” claim 1, top of page 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized a blanket composition including sulfur, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 30, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Matsumoto additionally discloses that the blanket (e.g., 67T) is configured as a battery storing electrical energy (67 stores and converts heat and electrical energy, see lower mid-page 21; additionally, see tritium production per page 22; tritium has a half-life of over 12 years and therefore emits energy during this time period).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto and KR777, as combined above, further in view of Kovalenko (RU 2649854 C1).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, the above-described combination of Matsumoto with KR777 teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly suggest sodium. Kovalenko does. Kovalenko is in the same art area of fusion reactors and teaches (Fig. 1) a fusion reactor blanket (11, 8), wherein said blanket also comprises a quantity of sodium (“sodium-potassium eutectic,” page 3), and wherein a reservoir (within 9) of said sodium is separated by said sulfur (outermost part 8 of blanket as modified above by KR777) by a solid electrolyte (11: “ceramic breeder,” page 3) (sodium moves as follows: 6 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 9 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 11, as explained on page 3). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been modified to additionally use sodium in the blanket because “The use of sodium-potassium eutectic allows you to abandon the preliminary heating of the coolant flow paths and creates a more stringent neutron spectrum, which also allows you to increase the multiplying properties of the nuclear zone,” as explained by Kovalenko on page 2. Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the electrolyte as taught by Kovalenko in order to “increase the temperature of the ceramic breeder to accelerate the release of tritium from it,” as explained by Kovalenko on page 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.
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
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 e.g., see Spec. at ¶ 11, ¶ 56, ¶ 59, ¶ 127, ¶ 129, and ¶ 133.
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>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
5 Achieving Fusion Ignition. <lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
6 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598.
7 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article.
8 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.