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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The following Non-Patent Literature Documents were not considered in the review. While the applicant has provided abstracts of the conference/annual meeting proceedings, a full legible copy has not been provided. MPEP 609.01(B)(2)(b). The partial copies are insufficient for consideration.
Levitt, “Zap Energy Sheared-Flow Stabilized Z-Pinch Reactor Results and Concept”, 2022 EIII International Conference on Plasma Science, Seattle, WA, USA, May 2022;
Thompson, “Summary of Power Handling Systems Development at Zap Energy”, 63rd Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, Volume 66, Number 13 November 2021;
Claveau, “Observation of a Stagnation Wave in the Fusion Z-pinch Experiment (FuZE)”; Mitrani, “Evidence for Thermonuclear Neutron Production on a Sheared-flow Stabilized (SFS) Z-pinch”, 62nd Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, Volume 65, Number 11, Submitted June 29, 2020;
Claveau, “Control of Sheared Flow Stabilized Z-pinch Properties with Electrode Geometry”, 61st Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, Volume 64, Number 11, October 2019;
Claveau, “Observation and Analysis of Thermonuclear Neutron Production in a Sheared-flow-stabilized Z-pinch”, 60th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, Volume 63, Number 11, November 2018”; and
Mitrani, “Temporally and Spatially Resolved Measurements of Neutron Production in a Sheared-flow Stabilized (SFS)”, 60th Annual Meeting of the APS Division of Plasma Physics, Volume 63, Number 11, November 2018
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 16-20, Option A2 (Fig. 4) and Option B1, a Ti electrode material, in the reply filed on June 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are canceled by the applicant in response dated June 20, 2025.
Claim 19 was amended and withdrawn by the applicant from further consideration in the reply; however, claim 19 is being examined because it includes elected species B1 which includes Ti electrode material.
Accordingly, claims 16-35 are pending. Claims 33 and 35 are withdrawn. Claims 16-32 and 34 are examined herein.
Newly submitted claim 33 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: originally presented method claims 16-20 were directed only to the “forming a static solid electrode” strategy and not to the “forming an in situ renewable electrode” strategy disclosed (see [0028] of the PGPub).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 33 and 35 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other 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 16-32, and 34 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.
Claim 16 is indefinite because the claim recites an electrode with a metal layer loaded with deuterium and/or tritium, “to cause the electrode to release hydrogen...” It is unclear, therefore how the “heating” of the claimed electrode could result in hydrogen evolution. Is the metal layer also loaded with hydrogen or is the resultant release of deuterium and/or tritium gas?
Claims 17-18 and 21-22 include wherein clauses, e.g., “wherein the metal layer is evaporated” that are indefinite because they do not delineate how previously recited active process steps are performed or introduce new process steps. MPEP 2111.04(I). Claim 16 introduces an electrode having a structure described as “formed from a bulk material and a metal layer evaporated thereon.” Claims 17-18 and 21-22 seem to describe how an evaporation process is carried out, but there is no recitation of an active step of evaporating in claim 16, nor is one introduced in claim 17 or claim 18. Accordingly, the scope of claims 17-18 and 21-22 are unclear. Do the claims encompass an electrode structure that could be formed by evaporation or does the method of claim 16 require steps of forming an electrode by evaporation?
Claim 27 is indefinite because it is unclear how the Ti-based material can comprise TiH2 when claim 16 claims a metal layer loaded with deuterium and/or tritium. (e.g., titanium dihydride (TiH2) releases hydrogen and titanium dideuteride (TiD2) releases deuterium.)
Claim 31 includes a wherein clause, e.g., “plasma is compressed” that is indefinite because it does not delineate how previously recited active steps are performed or introduce new process steps. MPEP 2111.04(I). Claim 16 introduces a step of, “directing electrical current… through the electrode to compress the plasma.” Claim 31 indicates that the compression is an effect of a method step. Is claim 31 further limiting the effect of the recited method step or is it intended to recite a step of forming a Z-pinch plasma? Further it is unclear as to whether the “plasma” in claim 31 is the same plasma that is introduced in claim 16.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 16, 18-20, 23-26, 29-32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumlak (Publication US 20220117072 A1) in view of Josephson (US 3715595).
Regarding claims 16, Shumlak discloses a method [Fig. 10], comprising: generating a thermonuclear fusion reaction ([0055] and [0004-0006]) in a plasma confinement chamber (Fig.2; 200) by: heating an electrode (202) formed from a bulk material and a metal layer thereon ([0048]) forming plasma (Fig. 10;1004) inside the plasma confinement chamber and directing electrical current (Fig. 10) (1006) into the plasma and through the electrode to compress the plasma and produce the thermonuclear fusion reaction ([0055] and [0004-0006]).
Shumlak is silent as to how the coating on the electrode ([0048]) if formed. However, many techniques are known for forming a metal coating, including evaporation, electroplating, sputtering, etc., so a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use a known technique to form the electrode of Shumlak.
Shumlak does not teach the metal layer is loaded with deuterium and/or tritium, to cause the electrode to release hydrogen gas. Josephson teaches this.
Josephson teaches a plasma Z-pinch fusion reactor (column 3, lines 2-3) comprising a plasma confinement chamber (see Fig. 2) and an inner electrode (34) loaded with deuterium and/or tritium (column 5, lines 20-25) and steps of heating the electrode to cause the electrode to release hydrogen gas (column 5, line 39), forming using the hydrogen gas, plasma inside the plasma confinement chamber (column 6, lines 6-9), and directing electrical current into the plasma and through the electrode to compress the plasma and produce a thermonuclear fusion reaction (column 6, lines 12-16). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to apply the titanium electrode taught by Josephson to the loaded metal coated electrode in the fusion generation method of Shumlak for the purpose of reducing electron erosion, thereby increasing fusion reactions (column 2, lines 39-44).
Regarding claim 18, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak discloses wherein the bulk material forms a shaft ending in a nosecone (rounded first end 204).
Regarding claim 19, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Josephson further teaches that its metal electrode comprises of titanium (column 5, lines 20-30). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the titanium metal electrode of Josephson to the metal coated electrode of Shumlak for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 20, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak is silent as to the thickness, so any thickness would be obvious. 2144.06(I). The thickness of the layer would directly affect erosion, as taught by Josephson, so one would be motivated to find a thickness that provided sufficient protection from erosion. (2144.06(II).
Regarding claim 23, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak further discloses wherein the bulk material comprises metal or graphite [0048].
Regarding claim 24, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Josephson teaches wherein the metal layer comprises a Ti-based material that is to be released by hydrogen gas (column 5, lines 23-25). Josephson does not explicitly disclose that the metal hydride having a formula of MHn , where n is a molar ratio of hydrogen atoms to metal ions M in a solid phase. However, it is known that titanium hydride possesses this chemical composition.1
Regarding claim 25, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Josephson further teaches wherein the electrode, when heated to decomposition temperature, is caused to release hydrogen gas via decomposition of the metal hydride (column 5, line 39). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the titanium metal electrode of Josephson to the method of Shumlak for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 26, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Josephson further teaches the Ti-based material releasing hydrogen gas above a threshold temperature (column 5, line 39). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the titanium metal electrode of Josephson to the method of Shumlak for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 28, Shumlak and Josephson teach all elements of the parent claim. Shumlak further discloses (Fig. 10;1002)(Fig. 2; 216) providing, to the plasma confinement chamber, a fuel gas that is to contribute to the formation of the plasma [0059], wherein forming the plasma comprises ionizing the fuel gas to form the plasma (Fig. 10; 0004). Shumlak as modified by Josephson further teaches wherein at least a first portion of the fuel gas is the released hydrogen gas (column 6, lines 1-12). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the titanium metal electrode of Josephson to the method of Shumlak for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 29, Shumlak and Josephson teach all elements of the parent claim. Shumlak teaches a second, remaining portion of the fuel gas is provided to the plasma confinement chamber by increasing one or more valve openings (Fig. 2; 203; [0059]). Although Shumlak does not explicitly identify reference number 203, Fig. 2 plainly shows that they are ball valves provided in the fuel gas port 216.
Regarding claim 30, Shumlak and Josephson teach all elements of the parent claim. Shumlak further discloses providing, to the plasma confinement chamber, additional plasma that is to be compressed with the formed using the hydrogen and(Fig. 10; 1004; [0059]. Shumlak as modified by Josephson further teaches the plasma is formed using hydrogen gas released from the metal layer (column 6, lines 1-12).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated use the electrode discharge gas of Josephson to produce plasma with the storage tank gas fuel of Shumlak to fuel the plasma for the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 31, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak discloses wherein the plasma is compressed, so as to form a Z-pinch plasma [0062].
Regarding claim 32, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Josephson further teaches wherein the metal layer releases free neutrons upon ionic bombardment of the metal layer and during the compression of plasma (column 5, lines 37-41) and (column 6, lines 9-16). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the titanium metal electrode of Josephson to the method of Shumlak for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 34, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak further discloses wherein the electrode is positioned so as to be exposed to the plasma confinement chamber (see Fig. 2).
Claims 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumlak (Publication US 20220117072 A1 in view of Josephson (US 3715595) and in further view of Yoshimura (US 20170309455 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak is silent to the metal layer being evaporated onto the rounded first end; however, it is commonly known to the skilled artisan that evaporation is a method to dispose a layer onto a material. Shumlak and Josephson do not teach masking the bulk material and evaporating the metal layer onto an unmasked portion of the bulk material. Yoshimura does.
Yoshimura is in the art area of a plasma apparatus configured to form a film on an object in a vacuum chamber. Yoshimura teaches, "The masking member 20 is a member covering portions not to be treated 10B of the object to be treated 10." (Fig.2)[0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use the masking system of Yoshimura, with metal layer evaporation, in the fusion generation method of Shumlak for the purpose isolating a portion of the surface to be treated [0010] and to enhance the film formation density or thickness in the portion to be treated [0097].
Regarding claim 21, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak discloses wherein the bulk material [0048] forms a shaft ending (204) in a nosecone (e.g., rounded first end) [0092]. Shumlak is silent to the metal layer being evaporated onto the rounded first end; however, it is commonly known to the skilled artisan that evaporation is a method to dispose a layer onto a material. Shumlak does not teach the metal layer evaporated onto only the unmask portion of the bulk material. Yoshimura does.
Yoshimura teaches, "The masking member 20 is a member covering portions not to be treated 10B of the object to be treated 10." [0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use the masking system of Yoshimura, with metal layer evaporation, in the fusion generation method of Shumlak for the purpose isolating a portion of the surface to be treated [0010] and to enhance the film formation density or thickness in the portion to be treated [0097].
Regarding claim 22, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak discloses the metal layer is disposed “first end of inner electrode” (Fig. 10; 1006). While Shumlak is silent to the metal layer is evaporated onto only the nosecone, Yoshimura teaches evaporating a layer only onto the surface selected.
Yoshimura teaches, "The masking member 20 is a member covering portions not to be treated 10B of the object to be treated 10." [0038]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to use the masking system of Yoshimura, with metal layer evaporation, on the electrode rounded end (i.e., nosecone) of for the purpose isolating the surface of the nosecone to be treated with the evaporated metal layer [0010] and to enhance the film formation density or thickness in only the portion to be treated [0097].
Claim 29 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shumlak (Publication US 20220117072 A1) in view of in view of Josephson (US 3715595) and in further view of Shumlak (US 20200058411 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Shumlak and Josephson teach all the elements of the parent claim. Shumlak appears to teach valves used to adjust gas flow into the plasma chamber as explained above. Nonetheless, Shumlak ‘411 teaches a plasma confinement system (Fig. 2; 200)[0058] includes one or more first valves 206 configured to direct gas from within the inner electrode 202 to an acceleration region between the inner electrode 202 and the intermediate electrode 203. The plasma confinement system 200 also includes two or more second valves 212 configured to direct gas from outside the intermediate electrode 203 to the acceleration region. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to provide fuel gas by opening valves, as described by Shumlak ‘411, in the fusion generation system of Shumlak, for the purpose of directing gas via two or more valves and converting at least a portion of the directed gas into a plasma having a substantially annular cross section, flowing axially towards a first end of the electrode to establish a Z-pinch plasma [0010].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY D GAMBONE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5108. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Beste (Understanding the TiH(2-x)/TiOy System at Elevated Temperature: A Literature Review, SAND2021-7272) attached hereto. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_hydride; https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Titanium-hydride; https://merckindex.rsc.org/monographs/m10899