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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, 25, and 27-29 are pending with claims 27-29 withdrawn. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, and 25 are examined herein.
Prosecution Status
2. This application is a CONTINUATION of Application 16/757,941 and the present claims are substantially identical to the claims of 16/757,941. Rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 as lacking utility, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as lacking an adequate written description and enablement, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite were affirmed in a BPAI decision dated 11/02/22.
Response to Arguments
3. The claim amendments and replacement drawings overcome the drawing objections.
4. The claim amendments overcome some of the rejections under 112(b). Some issues remain and new issues have been introduced. See below.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 101 are not persuasive. The evidence on which the arguments rely is addressed below.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are unpersuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner agrees that Zheng fails to teach features of claim 1. The rejection very clearly lays out how Wong teaches such features.
7. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 merely requires that “energy dissipates from the one or more reactors to provide power to the nuclear fission power plant” and “wherein the water held by the vessel receives energy dissipated by the one or more reactors to increase in temperature.” Zheng’s fusion reactor provides energy in the form of neutron radiation to the nuclear fission power plant and to the water held therein.
Background and Analysis
8. The present invention requires an apparatus comprising “one or more reactors,” wherein “repeated collisions between the neutrals and the reactant produce an interaction with the reactant that releases energy...wherein the energy dissipates from the one or more reactors to provide power to the nuclear fission power plant...wherein the water held by the vessel receives energy dissipated by the one or more reactors to increase in temperature.” Furthermore, the specification asserts the utility of the invention to be reactors for initiating and maintaining inter-nuclear reactions ([0002]) and produc[ing] usable electric power ([0026]). Therefore, the present invention is directed to a nuclear fusion reactor with a net energy output.
9. Nuclear fusion is defined as a process in which two or more atomic nuclei combine to form different atomic nuclei. The classic example of nuclear fusion at its most fundamental level is the combination of two hydrogen nuclei to form helium. Thermonuclear fusion as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refers to a process in which very high temperatures are used to bring about the fusion of light nuclei, such as those of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, with the accompanying liberation of energy. The temperature required to achieve nuclear fusion reactions relates to the kinetic energy of the reactants, and temperature and kinetic energy are related by the Boltzmann equation E=kT derived from E=mc2. Nuclear fusion reactants (e.g., hydrogen ions) must have energies of higher than approximately 100 keV to achieve nuclear fusion, and such energies can be achieved by accelerating and colliding ion beams. Note “while 100 keV represents a temperature of over one billion degrees, to produce fusion events, the fuel does not need to be heated to this temperature as a whole: some reactions will occur even at lower temperatures due to the small number of high-energy particles in the mix.”1
10. Nuclear fusion requires a reaction between two atomic nuclei, each of which carry a positive charge. According to Coulomb’s Law, like electrostatic charges repel one another and the repulsive force grows exponentially as the distance between two like charges decreases. Because nuclear fusion requires at least two positively-charged protons to assume a distance of near zero, the repulsive force working against the process of nuclear fusion is enormous. Therefore, to achieve nuclear fusion, sufficient energy must be input into the fusion reactor to overcome the repulsive force.
11. The ratio of the energy produced from fusion reactions to the energy used or lost in creating the fusion reactions is commonly referred to as the “Q” value.2 Fusion reactors which achieve a Q > 1, are said to have achieved “breakeven” or a net energy output. In order to be useful as a practical energy source, a fusion reactor would need to controllably and sustainably produce fusion reactions having a Q > 1. Net energy output from fusion reactors has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”, driving multi-decade long endeavors by the international fusion community to reach this goal.3
12. The “one or more reactors” of the present invention operate at significantly lower temperatures (1000-3000 K; [0091]) than those theorized needed for net energy production via nuclear fusion (>50 million K; Lawson). Furthermore, all known fusion reactors to date operate at an energy deficit; they require much more energy input to achieve fusion conditions than is given off by the fusion process (admitted in present specification at [0003, 0025]).
13. Applicant has attempted to provide evidence to suggest that the present invention is capable of energy production via nuclear fusion. This evidence is not sufficient to overcome the finding of incredible utility because there is no showing that the evidence on which Applicant relies for rebuttal is commensurate in scope with the claims.
14. Specifically, with respect to the affidavit (16/757,941 03/01/21), the claims in the present application have no overlap with the claims in application 12/850,633 to which the affidavit is directed. Similarly, the examiner can find no indication in the provided NPL documents that the device claimed in the present application has undergone sufficient testing to demonstrate its utility, i.e., its ability to produce an energy output. Furthermore, the provided NPL documents do not appear to have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals, which indicates the experimentation does not possess sufficient rigor to demonstrate utility. None of the information suggests the present invention is capable of a net energy output.
15. Declaration for application 12/850,633 (cited by Applicant in 16/757,941): Applicant argues that the Affidavit for the application 12/850,633 supports the claimed fusion reaction. However, this Affidavit is directed towards a different application than the instant invention, and insufficient evidence is provided by Applicant linking the features of the 12/850,633 Affidavit to that of the instant invention. The 12/850,633 Affidavit lays out a superconducting magnet, a discharge rod, a DC power source delivering a pulsed power supply, a cooling system, a supply of hydrogen gas, a boron target, and a cylindrical chamber. None of these features is claimed in the instant invention. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments merely states (p. 4 with added emphasis) that “the present invention contemplates creating and azimuthally accelerating a weakly ionized high neutral density plasma in which at least some collisions between reactant species result in a fusion reaction.” As has been established through decades of research and development into fusion reactors, there is a huge difference between “contemplating” a working fusion reactor and actually constructing one. The scientific community has contemplated fusion reactors since the early 1900s, but very reactors that have been constructed are capable of achieving nuclear fusion and none have yet provided an energy output.
16. PTAB Decision for application 12/850,633 (cited by Applicant in 16/757,941_: Applicant states that PTAB reversed lack of utility and enablement rejections in case 12/850,633. However, a review of this Decision shows that the reversal was based on the relevance of the aforementioned Affidavit, whose relevance to this case has not been established. Accordingly, the Decision in case 12/850,633 does not automatically apply to the instant case, which is examined on its own merits.
17. Electron Catalyzed Fusion Manuscript (cited by Applicant in 16/757,941): Applicant argues in support of the instant application in the form of the paper referred to as “ECF”. Examiner notes that this paper was not published in any online peer-reviewed journal. This paper is only published at arxiv.org, whose homepage states that “Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv.” This is not by coincidence. This paper is directed toward subject matter that lies outside the realm of established science. As evidenced by another Wong manuscript listed on this site, “electron catalyzed fusion” is a term coined by the Applicant to describe their purported nuclear fusion scheme. Therefore, this manuscript cannot be accepted as evidence that Applicant’s underlying theory of Coulomb barrier lowering is a technology recognized by mainstream scientists. Moreover, Applicant’s arguments fail to establish that the device purportedly tested in the manuscript bears any similarity to the claimed fusion reactor. Of note is that the “ECF” experiments involved a “single large LaB6 electron emitter and source of boron11 attached to the negative outer cylindrical electrode of our crossed field, cylindrical diode, plasma centrifuge configured fusion reactor.” The present invention does not claim LaB6 and the disclosure does not seem to indicate the present invention utilizes LaB6 in the configuration used in the “ECF” manuscript. For example, [0184] states “an inner electrode is constructed from a single material such as…lanthanum hexaboride.” Note that “ECF” indicates the lanthanum hexaboride is “attached to the negative outer electrode.” Moreover, the term “cylindrical diode” used in the “ECF” manuscript does not appear in the present disclosure. These inconsistencies make it impossible to give weight to the “ECF” manuscript in an analysis of the present invention’s utility.
18. CR-39 report (cited by Applicant in 16/757,941): Applicant argues that the CR-39 report also provides supporting experimental results of Applicant’s fusion process. Again, Examiner can find no evidence that this paper has been published in any reputable journal. Accordingly, this report cannot be used to support Applicant’s assertion that the disclosed fusion process is accepted by mainstream scientists.
19. “An Approach to Nuclear Fusion Utilizing the Dynamics of High-Density Electrons and Neutrals, Part 1” (cited in present application Remarks 11/12/25, p. 9): While Applicant has cited Wong, there do not appear to be any specific arguments or explanation of the relevance of the article with respect to Applicant’s invention. Further, the article was also authored by Applicant themselves. The document is theoretical, rather than practical, in nature and states “[e]xperimental support will be described in a second manuscript with new diagnostics to demonstrate that fusion does take place.” No such experimental results have been introduced to the file in this application. Thus, as previously discussed, an article by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible.
20. “Steady state rotational dynamics of a weakly ionised hydrogen plasma under cross-field configuration” (cited in present application Remarks 11/12/25, p. 9): Again, while Applicant has cited Muir, there do not appear to be any specific arguments or explanation of the relevance of the article with respect to Applicant’s invention. The article was authored by Applicant themselves. The article is theoretical and provides no experimental results. It concludes that it “developed a rigorous theoretical model” and states “diagnostic systems are currently under development to support the experimental programme and future work will seek to validate the theoretical predictions.” No such experimental results have been introduced to the file in this application. Thus, as previously discussed, an article by the Applicant does not counter what contemporary knowledge, accepted by the mainstream scientific community, might otherwise suggest and further does not provide sufficient reasoning to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Applicant’s asserted utility to be credible.
21. The state of the art in nuclear fusion is the standard by which a skilled artisan would judge the credibility of the asserted utility of the present invention. The examiner reiterates that the present invention operates at temperatures orders of magnitude lower than what is necessary to achieve nuclear fusion. Moreover, there is no evidence of record that the present invention’s asserted utility has been demonstrated. Breakthroughs in nuclear fusion typically receive press attention. For example, a recent experiment at the National Ignition Facility—an experiment that more was more successful than previous attempts but still far short of the Facility’s goal of achieving fusion power output by 2012—was described in a Nature News Explainer Article. Accordingly, if Applicant has truly achieved nuclear fusion power output with the claimed device after nearly a century of failed attempts, a skilled artisan would expect there to be press releases, third-party publications, literature reviews and critiques, etc. Such publications could lend weight to the asserted utility. Without such evidence, however, the asserted utility of the present invention remains incredible.
22. There is no evidence of record in this application that the present invention is capable of producing any fusion reactions, much less sufficient fusion reactions to provide an energy output.
The foregoing explanation provides the basis by which a skilled artisan would have cause to doubt the credibility of the utility of the present invention. A skilled artisan would doubt the utility of the present invention because 1) it operates at temperatures less than those known to achieve nuclear fusion and 2) there is no evidence in the disclosure that the present invention has undergone testing to demonstrate its ability to achieve nuclear fusion and energy production.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112(a)
23. 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.
24. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a credible utility, a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
25. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, and 25 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a credible utility, a specific and substantial asserted utility, or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
26. A "specific utility" is specific to the subject matter claimed and can "provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public." In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371, 76 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[A]n application must show that an invention is useful to the public as disclosed in its current form, not that it may prove useful at some future date after further research. Simply put, to satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that the claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the public." Fisher, 421 F.3d at 1371, 76 USPQ2d at 1230.
27. The claimed invention requires an apparatus comprising a reactor, wherein “repeated collisions between the neutrals and the reactant produce an interaction with the reactant that releases energy…wherein the energy dissipates from the one or more reactors to provide power to the nuclear fission-type power plant…wherein the water held by the vessel receives energy dissipated by the one or more reactors to increase in temperature.” Furthermore, the specification asserts the utility of the invention to be reactors for initiating and maintaining inter-nuclear reactions ([0002]) and produc[ing] usable electric power ([0026]). Therefore, the present invention is directed to a nuclear fusion reactor with a net energy output.
28. There is no evidence of record in this application that the present invention is capable of producing any fusion reactions, much less sufficient fusion reactions to provide an energy output or to produce helium. Of note is the disclosure that the present apparatus operates at of significantly lower temperatures (1000-3000 K; [0091]) than those theorized needed for net energy production via nuclear fusion (>50 million K; Lawson) While fusion energy has been achieved in some reactors, there has yet to be a demonstration of net energy production. In other words, all known fusion reactors to date operate at an energy deficit; they require much more energy input to achieve fusion conditions than is given off by the fusion process (admitted in present specification at ([0003], [0025]).
29. Accordingly, the examiner finds the asserted utility of the present invention to be incredible in view of contemporary knowledge. It is therefore neither “specific” nor “substantial.”
30. The examiner has the initial burden of challenging an asserted utility. Only after the examiner has provided evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the asserted utility does the burden shift to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence sufficient to convince one of ordinary skill in the art of the invention's asserted utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 56 USPQ2d 1703, (Fed. Cir. 2000).
31. According to MPEP 2107.02(III)(B), one situation where an assertion of utility would not be considered credible is where a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion to be "incredible in view of contemporary knowledge." Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant … asserted a utility that was wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). Additionally, “[t]he 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
32. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
33. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
34. MPEP 2163 sets forth principles governing compliance with the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed. The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
35. The present invention is directed to “an apparatus for a retrofitted nuclear fission-type power plant” comprising one or more fusion reaction reactor and “a vessel within the nuclear fission-type power plant for holding water, wherein the water held by the vessel receives energy dissipated by the one or more reactors to increase in temperature (claim 1). The claimed invention additionally requires “reactors dimensionally sized to integrate with support hardware for fuel rods of the nuclear fission- type power plant;” (claim 9); “a support structure configured to hold the one or more reactors in the vessel during operation” (claim 11); “spacer grids which hold the one or more reactors in place to reduce vibrations” (claim12); “the energy dissipated by the one or more reactors approximately matches a power output level of the nuclear fission- type power plant” (claim 13); “equipment originally deployed with the nuclear fission-type power plant is modified to integrate with the one or more reactors” (claim 16); “wherein the one or more reactors replace a fission energy source of the nuclear fission-type power plant” (claim 17); “one or more energy conversion devices placed at one or more ends of at least one of the one or more reactors to convert charged and/or neutral particles directly or indirectly into thermal energy” (claim 22); and “a retrofit structure configured to accommodate the one or more reactors in place control rods and fuel rods” (claim 23).
36. None of the aforementioned claim limitations have been described in the specification in such a manner as to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention. For example, the structures associated with supporting the fusion reactors in the nuclear fission vessel have neither been described nor illustrated, indicating that such structures have not yet been designed or constructed. In fact, the integration of the fusion reactors with the fission reactor vessels is illustrated only notionally (see, for example, Fig. 27). In fact, the vessel of Fig. 27 is illustrated so vaguely as not to not have any of the required characteristics of a fission reactor vessel. Moreover, there is no indication that the fusion reactor of the present invention is capable of an energy output matching that of a conventional nuclear fission reactor (on the order of 1000 MW). Accordingly, the disclosure is merely theoretical in nature and lacks the “full, clear concise, and exact” description necessary to construct and use the present invention.
37. Claims 1-8, 12-21, 24, and 25 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) 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.
38. The present invention requires 1) an energy-producing fusion reactor and 2) integration of such a reactor into a nuclear fission plant. However, the disclosure lacks any evidence that the described fusion reactor is capable of achieving nuclear fusion, much less an energy output. Moreover, the specification is devoid of any structural details necessary to construct a fission-type nuclear power plant utilizing energy from a fusion reactor. Accordingly, it would be impossible for a skilled artisan to practice the claimed invention.
39. Based on the evidence regarding the below factors (In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the specification at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
The nature of the invention and the state of the art indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to make and use the present invention. Firstly, there are currently no known fusion reactors capable of outputting energy and the present disclosure does not establish that the fusion reactor of the invention is capable of such an output. Furthermore, the state of the art does not provide a basis for filling in the gaps left in the disclosure, such as by establishing the relevant structure for integrating a fusion reactor with a fission reactor vessel is well-known in the art.
The level of predictability in the art and the amount of direction provided by the inventor additionally indicate that a skilled artisan would be unable to make and use the claimed invention. There is no predictability for energy-producing fusion reactors, as none yet exist. Furthermore, the specification does not provide an explanation as to how one would achieve energy production with the disclosure fusion reactor. Moreover, the specification does not provide the necessary constructional details required for integrating a fusion reactor with a fission reactor vessel.
The absence of working examples indicates one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled to make the claimed invention.
Based on the foregoing considerations, it is unlikely that any amount of experimentation would result in a skilled artisan’s ability to make and use the present invention, because viable energy production via nuclear fusion has yet to be demonstrated. Even if one were to achieve energy production in a nuclear reactor, one would still have to design, construct, and test the structures necessary for integration of such a reactor into a fission plant.
40. 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.
41. Claims 2, 8, 12, and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
42. The structure delineated by the conditional functional limitation of claim 2 has no clear boundaries. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to decipher what structure a vessel must have to meet this limitation. How does this limitation further limit the structure of the vessel introduced in claim 1?
43. Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear how the PWR or BWR is associated with the structure of claim 1. Is the PWR or BWR the vessel in which the one or more reactors disposed? Is the power plant somehow operated with both the vessel of claim 1 and the reactor of claim 8? If so, how are the two power-producing elements arranged in the plant?
44. Claim 12 is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. It depends on a cancelled claim and the recitation “the support structure” was not previously introduced.
45. Claim 14 is indefinite because it is not a structural limitation of the claimed apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what structure would achieve such a limitation.
46. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
47. 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.
48. For applicant’s benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. 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.
49. 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.
50. Claims 1-8, 12, 14-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, US Publication 2017/0294238 in view of Wong, US Publication 2014/0219407, In further view of Wong, et al., US 2015/.
51. Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses an apparatus for a retrofitted nuclear fission-type power plant (see Fig. 18), the apparatus comprising: (a) one reactor (100) that releases energy that dissipates from the reactor to the nuclear fission-type power plant ([0363]) and (b) a vessel (1505) within the nuclear fission-type power plant for holding water, wherein the water held by the vessel receives energy dissipated by the one or more reactors to increase in temperature ([0362]).
Zheng does not disclose a reactor comprising a confining wall… as claimed. Wong teaches a reactor (Fig. 1) comprising: a confining wall ([0091]) at least partially enclosing a confinement region within which charged particles and neutrals can rotate, and electron emitting portions configured to, during operation of the reactor, form an electron-rich region adjacent the confining wall ([0123], [0129]), a plurality of electrodes ([0024]) adjacent or proximate to the confinement region, a control system comprising a voltage and/or current source (12) configured to apply an electric potential between at least two of the plurality of electrodes, wherein the applied electric potential generates an electric field within the confinement region that alone, or in conjunction with a magnetic field, induces or maintains rotational movement of the charged particles and the neutrals in the confinement region ([0025-8), and a reactant (7/10) disposed in or adjacent to the confinement region such that, during operation, repeated collisions between the neutrals and the reactant produce an interaction with the reactant that releases energy and produces a product having a nuclear mass that is different from a nuclear mass of any of the nuclei of the neutrals and the reactant, wherein the energy dissipates from the one or more reactors to provide power ([0029]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the reactor of Wong with the system of Zheng because Wong suggests that its reactor could be used for repowering an existing nuclear power plant ([0143]).
Wong does not explicitly teach that it’s electron emitting portions are embedded in the reactor wall. Wong-2015 teaches this (see Fig. 16 and [0179]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the electron emitter arrangement taught by Wong-2015 is the reactor of Wong in Zheng’s fission reactor for the predictable purpose of “generating and controlling electrons present” and to direct particles towards the electron emitter ([0179]).
52. Regarding claim 2, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus wherein the vessel is configured to hold fuel rods and control rods during operation of a nuclear fission reaction in the fuel rods ([0361-2]).
53. Regarding claims 3-7, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus further comprising: a steam generator (1535) coupled to the one or more reactors to generate steam upon receiving energy from the one or more reactors, an electricity generator (1150) having a turbine (1540) that rotates to output electricity upon receiving steam from the steam generator, a condenser (1560) associated with the steam generator to condense steam to liquid water, and a cooling tower (1595) configured to release water vapor generated by the condensed steam to cycle the liquid water toward a reservoir and/or to regulate temperature of the nuclear fission-type power plant, and wherein the electricity generator is connected to a switchyard (1590) to provide electric power thereto.
54. Regarding claim 8, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus wherein the fission type nuclear power plant comprises a pressurized water reactor ([0361]).
55. Regarding claim 12, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus further comprising: a support structure configured to hold the one or more reactors in the vessel during operation, wherein the support structure includes spacer grids which hold the one or more reactors in place to reduce vibrations during operation of the nuclear fission-type power plant (([0362]) indicates that the reactor is “preferably positioned at the center of the nuclear fuel for fission” so the surrounding fuel assemblies themselves and their spacer grids are the support structure of the claim).
56. Regarding claim 14, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Wong is silent as to the operating temperature of its reactor, but a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to operate the reactor such that the temperature of an outer surface of the one or more reactors does not exceed about 2,200°F to prevent melting or other damage to the structural components of the reactor and its surrounding structure. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the reactor of Wong with the system of Zheng for the reason stated above.
57. Regarding claim 15, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Wong is silent as to the heat transfer area of its reactor, but does suggest that its size can be optimized ([0094]). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select a desired heat transfer area to achieve an optimal or selected heat transfer efficiency between the reactor and the coolant. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the reactor of Wong with the system of Zheng for the reason stated above.
58. Regarding claims 17 and 18, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng discloses adding a fusion reactor to the fissionable material in a conventional nuclear reactor core. However, Wong teaches replacing the fissionable reactor core with its fusion reactor ([0143]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to apply the teaching of Wong to Zhen to provide an apparatus wherein the one or more reactors replace a fission energy source of the nuclear fission-type power plant and wherein the vessel does not have control rods during operation of the one or more reactors. Replacing the fissionable material would simplify operation of the plant and render the control rods necessary for preventing criticality obsolete.
59. Regarding claim 19, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus wherein heat produced upon operation of the one or more reactors is conducted through walls thereof to surrounding water ([0362-3]).
60. Regarding claim 20, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Wong additionally teaches a reactor wherein the magnetic field is provided by a device positioned either within or outside the reactor (11; [0024]), wherein the device is selected from a group consisting of: permanent magnets, non-superconducting electromagnets, and superconducting electromagnets ([0091]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the reactor of Wong with the system of Zheng for the reason stated above.
61. Regarding claim 21, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Zheng further discloses an apparatus wherein, during operation, energy dissipated from the one or more reactors is converted to steam by an existing structure of the nuclear fission-type power plant ([0363]).
62. Regarding claim 25, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Wong further teaches a reactor configured to induce rotational movement of charged particles and the neutrals in the confinement region by an interaction between the electric field and an applied magnetic field within the confinement region ([0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the reactor of Wong with the system of Zheng for the reason stated above.
63. Regarding claim 24, the modification of Zheng’s nuclear power plant with the reactor of Wong and the embedded electron emitter of Wong-2015 renders the parent claim obvious. Wong further teaches a reactor wherein the control system is configured to induce rotational movement of charged particles and the neutrals in the confinement region by applying time-varying voltages to the plurality of electrodes ([0025-6]) but does not disclose an azimuthal arrangement of electrodes. Wong-2015 teaches a similar reactor with such an electrode arrangement (see Fig. 10 and [0166]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to modify Wong-2014 in combination with Zheng for the predictable purpose of eliminating the need for an axial static magnetic field ([0166]).
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached on 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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Wikipedia: Colliding Beam Fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colliding_beam_fusion).
2 “Development of fusion reactor technology; attached as Appendix.
3 Star Power: Blazing the path to fusion ignition