DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s Species and sub-species election filed on 07/07/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, Sub-species 1-1, Sub-species 2-2, Sub-species 3-1, and Sub-species 4-2 in the reply filed on 07/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13, 16, 18, 23, 25, and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B, Species C, Species D, Species E, Species F, Sub-species 1-2 (Claim 13), Sub-species 2-1 (Claim 16), Sub-species 3-2 (Claim 16), Sub-species 4-1 (Claims 23 and 25), and Sub-species 4-3 (Claim 26), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/2025.
Drawings
Fig. 5 is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "126" and "127" have both been used to designate the same region of Fig. 5. Para. [0118] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “The space 126 is advantageously enclosed by walls 127, which form a cylinder with the wall 123.” Therefore, reference characters "126" and "127" are not the same drawing element.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
11 - Para. [0147] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “…the source material 11 in the enclosure 9 so as to ionize the isotopes of the source material.”
Fig. 8 is objected to because reference characters "87" is believed to be in error for “85”. Para. [0087] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “FIG. 8 shows an ionization system that can be implemented in an engine according to the invention.” Para. [0190] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “…ionization enclosure of the ionization system 85 by means of…”. Para. [0209] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “The ionization enclosure of the ionization system 85 is…”. Para. [0210] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed “…the acceleration in the ion accelerator 87 or…”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “comprising a second enclosure arranged between the first enclosure and the chamber and comprising a second target material, the ion accelerator being configured to accelerate the ionized source material towards the second target material…” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 6. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the second target material is a fluid flowing in a second target material cooling circuit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 7. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “in which the second enclosure comprises a heat-transfer liquid, the heat-transfer liquid flowing in a heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 8. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “in which the second target material cooling circuit and/or the heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit is configured to transmit a heat recovered to device for converting heat energy into electricity” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 9. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more sensors configured to measure a deformation of the engine and/or a temperature of the engine and/or the acceleration of parts of the engine” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 11. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a filter, in particular a bag filter, configured to separate carbon and hydrogen, the filter being arranged at the output of the chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 15. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second cooling circuit configured so that a second heat-transfer liquid flows in the walls of the chamber, the heat transported by the second heat-transfer liquid preferably being used to generate electricity” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 19. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further comprising an ion thruster arranged at the output of the chamber and configured to accelerate the fluid leaving the chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 20. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further comprising a fluid reserve fluidly connected to the intake of the chamber” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 21. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein which the fluid is stored in gaseous or liquid form in the fluid reserve or the fluid is a gas produced by chemical reaction of a liquid stored in the fluid reserve, in particular by combustion” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from Claim 22. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph numbers are from PG Pub 2023/0253128.
Para. [0140] “An ionization system 87 that” is believed to be in error for --An ionization system [[87]] 85 that-- because Para. [0190] disclosed “…ionization system 85…”.
Para. [0141] “the ionization system 87 comprises” is believed to be in error for --the ionization system [[87]] 85 comprises-- because Para. [0190] disclosed “…ionization system 85…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28, l. 1 “the accelerated ionized source causes” is believed to be in error for --the accelerated ionized source material causes-- to maintain consistency among the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, l. 4 recitation “system for at least partially ionizing the source material” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation because “system for” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see MPEP2181(I)(A).
Claim 7, l. 2 and Claim 9, ll. 1 - 2 recitations “second target material cooling circuit” is interpreted as ‘circuit for cooling a second target material’ which invokes 112(f) interpretation because (A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim 8, l. 2 and Claim 9, l. 2 recitations “heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit” is interpreted as ‘circuit for cooling a heat-transfer liquid’ which invokes 112(f) interpretation because (A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Claim 9, l. 3 recitation “device for converting heat energy into electricity” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation because “device for” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see MPEP2181(I)(A).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 – 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 – 22, 24, 27, and 28 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Claim 1, l. 4 recitation “system for at least partially ionizing the source material” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, the disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of at least partially ionizing the source material. The original written description only disclosed “system for at least partially ionizing the source material” in the Abstract and Para. [0015] of PG Pub 2023/0253128. The Abstract and Para. [0015] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different systems capable of at least partially ionizing a source material depending upon the specific nature of the source material. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation “source material” encompasses all phases of matter and all types of matter known to man. Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Furthermore, none of the dependent claims further define the scope of the “system for at least partially ionizing the source material”. Claims 2 – 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 – 22, 24, 27, and 28 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 7 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Claim 7, l. 2 and Claim 9, ll. 1 - 2 recitations “second target material cooling circuit” is interpreted as ‘circuit for cooling a second target material’ which invokes 112(f) interpretation. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, the disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of cooling the second target material. The original written description failed to disclose “second target material cooling circuit” which is only recited in Claims 7 and 9. Para. [0072] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 only disclosed a “second cooling circuit”. None of the original figures show the claimed “second target material cooling circuit”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different circuits or combination of circuits and devices for cooling a second target material since the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘second target material’ encompassed any known or unknown liquid or gas. Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent Claims 8 and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Claim 8, l. 2 and Claim 9, l. 2 recitations “heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit” is interpreted as ‘circuit for cooling a heat-transfer liquid’ which invokes 112(f) interpretation. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, the disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of cooling the second target material. Para. [0061] of PG Pub 2023/0253128 disclosed a “heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit” without any additional details. In other words, Para. [0061] just repeated the claim limitation without any additional details. None of the original figures show the claimed “heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different circuits or combination of circuits and devices for cooling heat-transfer liquid since the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘heat-transfer liquid’ encompassed any known or unknown heat-transfer liquid. Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, Claim 9, l. 3 recitation “device for converting heat energy into electricity” is interpreted as invoking 112(f) interpretation. As discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections below, the disclosure does not provide a description of adequate structure, material, or acts to perform the entire claimed function of at least partially ionizing the source material. The original written description only disclosed “device for converting heat energy into electricity” in Para. [0062] and Para. [0096] of PG Pub 2023/0253128. Para. [0062] and Para. [0096] basically repeat the claim language without any additional details. None of the original figures show the claimed “device for converting heat energy into electricity”. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there were many different devices or combination of devices for converting heat energy into electricity. Consequently, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites “wherein the walls of the chamber comprise one or more first target materials, the ion accelerator being configured to accelerate the ionized source material towards the first target materials so as to cause a fusion of nuclei of the ionized source material with the nuclei of the first target materials, preferably forming a stable isotope, said first target materials preferably forming a coating of the inner walls of the chamber”. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims fusion of nuclei of the ionized source material with the nuclei of the first target materials in or on the walls of the chamber; (B) the nature of the invention – an engine having a chamber defined by chamber walls, a system for at least partially ionizing a source material, and an ion accelerator configured to accelerate an ionized source material towards the chamber walls.; (C) the state of the prior art - The claimed “fusion of nuclei of the ionized source material with the nuclei of the first target materials” was known in the art as “beam-target fusion” where the chamber wall(s) are the “target” and the accelerated ionized source material is the “beam” fired at the target. At the writing of this Office Action, Examiner is not aware of any “beam-target fusion” experiments that actually achieved the claimed fusion let alone producing more energy than it took to power the experiment. Yasemin Saplakoglu, “Has this Startup Cracked the Secret to Fusion Energy?”, Live Science, June 25, 2018 teaches, on Pg. 1, that the joke was “…that commercially viable fusion energy has been just on the horizon — 30 years away at most — for the past eight decades”, i.e., 80 years. Saplakoglu, teaches, on Pg. 3, “This beam-to-target fusion idea was first proposed in the 1930s and was "thought to be unviable," because it uses more energy than it generates, Hopkins said. "This was originally discarded as a path to fusion energy because it radiates out a lot of energy [that's not usable]. It scatters too much when it hits the target," Hopkins told Live Science. "Too much energy is lost that way, and that was sort of the end of the [idea]."” Saplakoglu, teaches, on Pg. 4, “While such systems can make a low level of fusion reactions … obtaining more energy out than what you're putting in is hopeless for pretty fundamental reasons," Donald Spong, a plasma physicist working on fusion reactions at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, told Live Science in an email. That's because the scattering will likely be too high, said Spong, who is not involved in Agni's research.” Saplakoglu, further teaches, on Pg. 4, “John Foster, a plasma physicist at the University of Michigan who is not part of the project, doesn't think it's impossible but just very tricky. "I can't say never, just that it's challenging," he said. "With solid targets, scattering is significant."”. A Google search of Agni Energy (the startup in the above article) failed to reveal any webpages or articles stating that Agni Energy had succeeded in achieving beam-to-target fusion energy production. In fact, Examiner only found websites announcing the founding of Agni Energy in 2018 with no subsequent news posted online in the seven years since the company’s founding. In fact, a completely different fusion experiment only achieved scientific breakeven in December 5, 2022 at the cost of around $4.2 billion and 25 years (12 years to build the test facility and 13 years of testing). Scientific breakeven in fusion is achieved when a fusion reaction produces more energy than was used to initiate it, a milestone known as a Q factor of 1 or greater. The challenge remains to achieve a higher "engineering breakeven" where the total energy put into the entire system, including laser inefficiencies, is less than the useful energy output for electricity generation, which will require significantly higher Q factors. Wikipedia webpage “National Ignition Facility” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility], page 1, first paragraph “The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research device, located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, United States. NIF's mission is to achieve fusion ignition with high energy gain. It achieved the first instance of scientific breakeven controlled fusion in an experiment on December 5, 2022, with an energy gain factor of 1.5”. “National Ignition Facility”, page 1, last paragraph continuing on to page 2, “On December 5, 2022, after further technical improvements, NIF reached "ignition", or scientific breakeven, for the first time, achieving a 154% energy yield compared to the input energy.[12] However, while this was scientifically a success,[13] the experiment in practice produced less than 1% of the energy the facility used to create it:[14] while 3.15 MJ of energy was yielded from 2.05 MJ input,[15] the lasers delivering the 2.05 MJ of energy took about 300 MJ to produce in the facility.”. Since the power released during a fusion event, by even the most advanced inertial fusion systems today, was well below, i.e., less than 1%, the energy required to operate the lasers themselves, there was and is no existing inertial system that is capable of releasing the amount of energy used to power the fusion reaction let alone capture the released energy in a manner that would result in a net usable energy output from an inertial confinement fusion system, i.e., "engineering breakeven". As stated above, the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) was a completely different fusion method compared to the claimed “beam-target fusion”. Examiner could not find any articles reporting that any “beam-target fusion” experiment has achieved “scientific breakeven” let alone "engineering breakeven".; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability – requiring extensive design and investment, validation and certification. “National Ignition Facility” (NIF), page 1, second to last paragraph continuing on to page 2, stated that it took 12 years to build the test facility at the cost of $4.2 billion (page 12, first paragraph) which was almost four times the original budget and after 13 years of testing the facility was only able to achieve fusion that produced less than 1% of the energy the facility used to create it. In 2000 the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that funding the necessary research would cost an additional $1 billion. Therefore, it will probably take billions of dollars and decades of additional research for the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) to achieve "engineering breakeven" where the useful energy output for electricity generation is greater than the amount of energy used to initiate the fusion reaction. Since the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is billions of dollars and decades of research away from achieving "engineering breakeven", then Applicant’s claimed “beam-target fusion” experiment which has yet to achieve “scientific breakeven” is even further away from achieving "engineering breakeven". Consequently, Applicant’s claimed “beam-target fusion” has low predictability and would require extensive design and investment, validation and certification.; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)].
Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites “wherein the source material is an isotope that produces a stable isotope on fusion with nitrogen 14 and/or oxygen 16, preferably lithium 7, boron 11, fluorine 19, beryllium 9, tritium, nitrogen 15 or carbon 13, or the source material is an isotope that produces a stable isotope on fusion with carbon 12 and/or hydrogen, preferably sodium 23 or fluorine 19”. When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims fusion of nuclei of the ionized source material with the nuclei of the first target materials in or on the walls of the chamber wherein the source material is an isotope that produces a stable isotope on fusion with nitrogen 14 and/or oxygen 16, preferably lithium 7, boron 11, fluorine 19, beryllium 9, tritium, nitrogen 15 or carbon 13, or the source material is an isotope that produces a stable isotope on fusion with carbon 12 and/or hydrogen, preferably sodium 23 or fluorine 19; (B) the nature of the invention – an engine having a chamber defined by chamber walls, a system for at least partially ionizing a source material, and an ion accelerator configured to accelerate an ionized source material towards the chamber walls.; (C) the state of the prior art - The claimed “fusion of nuclei of the ionized source material with the nuclei of the first target materials” was known in the art as “beam-target fusion” where the accelerated ionized source material is the “beam” fired at a target, in this case nitrogen or oxygen or sodium or fluorine. At the writing of this Office Action, Examiner is not aware of any “beam-target fusion” experiments that actually achieved the claimed fusion let alone producing more energy than it took to power the experiment. Yasemin Saplakoglu, “Has this Startup Cracked the Secret to Fusion Energy?”, Live Science, June 25, 2018 teaches, on Pg. 1, that the joke was “…that commercially viable fusion energy has been just on the horizon — 30 years away at most — for the past eight decades”, i.e., 80 years. Saplakoglu, teaches, on Pg. 3, “This beam-to-target fusion idea was first proposed in the 1930s and was "thought to be unviable," because it uses more energy than it generates, Hopkins said. "This was originally discarded as a path to fusion energy because it radiates out a lot of energy [that's not usable]. It scatters too much when it hits the target," Hopkins told Live Science. "Too much energy is lost that way, and that was sort of the end of the [idea]."” Saplakoglu, teaches, on Pg. 4, “While such systems can make a low level of fusion reactions … obtaining more energy out than what you're putting in is hopeless for pretty fundamental reasons," Donald Spong, a plasma physicist working on fusion reactions at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, told Live Science in an email. That's because the scattering will likely be too high, said Spong, who is not involved in Agni's research.” Saplakoglu, further teaches, on Pg. 4, “John Foster, a plasma physicist at the University of Michigan who is not part of the project, doesn't think it's impossible but just very tricky. "I can't say never, just that it's challenging," he said. "With solid targets, scattering is significant."”. A Google search of Agni Energy (the startup in the above article) failed to reveal any webpages or articles stating that Agni Energy had succeeded in achieving beam-to-target fusion energy production. In fact, Examiner only found websites announcing the founding of Agni Energy in 2018 with no subsequent news posted online in the seven years since the company’s founding. In fact, a completely different fusion experiment only achieved scientific breakeven in December 5, 2022 at the cost of around $4.2 billion and 25 years (12 years to build the test facility and 13 years of testing). Scientific breakeven in fusion is achieved when a fusion reaction produces more energy than was used to initiate it, a milestone known as a Q factor of 1 or greater. The challenge remains to achieve a higher "engineering breakeven" where the total energy put into the entire system, including laser inefficiencies, is less than the useful energy output for electricity generation, which will require significantly higher Q factors. Wikipedia webpage “National Ignition Facility” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility], page 1, first paragraph “The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is a laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) research device, located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, United States. NIF's mission is to achieve fusion ignition with high energy gain. It achieved the first instance of scientific breakeven controlled fusion in an experiment on December 5, 2022, with an energy gain factor of 1.5”. “National Ignition Facility”, page 1, last paragraph continuing on to page 2, “On December 5, 2022, after further technical improvements, NIF reached "ignition", or scientific breakeven, for the first time, achieving a 154% energy yield compared to the input energy.[12] However, while this was scientifically a success,[13] the experiment in practice produced less than 1% of the energy the facility used to create it:[14] while 3.15 MJ of energy was yielded from 2.05 MJ input,[15] the lasers delivering the 2.05 MJ of energy took about 300 MJ to produce in the facility.”. Since the power released during a fusion event, by even the most advanced inertial fusion systems today, was well below, i.e., less than 1%, the energy required to operate the lasers themselves, there was and is no existing inertial system that is capable of releasing the amount of energy used to power the fusion reaction let alone capture the released energy in a manner that would result in a net usable energy output from an inertial confinement fusion system, i.e., "engineering breakeven". As stated above, the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) was a completely different fusion method compared to the claimed “beam-target fusion”. Examiner could not find any articles reporting that any “beam-target fusion” experiment has achieved “scientific breakeven” let alone "engineering breakeven".; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability – requiring extensive design and investment, validation and certification. “National Ignition Facility” (NIF), page 1, second to last paragraph continuing on to page 2, stated that it took 12 years to build the test facility at the cost of $4.2 billion (page 12, first paragraph) which was almost four times the original budget and after 13 years of testing the facility was only able to achieve fusion that produced less than 1% of the energy the facility used to create it. In 2000 the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that funding the necessary research would cost an additional $1 billion. Therefore, it will probably take billions of dollars and decades of additional research for the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) to achieve "engineering breakeven" where the useful energy output for electricity generation is greater than the amount of energy used to initiate the fusion reaction. Since the laser-based inertial confinement fusion (ICF) of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is billions of dollars and decades of research away from achieving "engineering breakeven", then Applicant’s claimed “beam-target fusion” experiment which has yet to achieve “scientific breakeven” is even further away from achieving "engineering breakeven". Furthermore, “National Ignition Facility” (NIF), page 2, third paragraph, stated “The target is a small spherical pellet containing a few milligrams of fusion fuel, typically a mix of deuterium (D) and tritium (T), as this composition has the lowest ignition temperature”. Deuterium (D) was a stable isotope of Hydrogen while Tritium (T) was a rare and unstable and radioactive isotope of hydrogen. As isotopes of Hydrogen (atomic mass of 1) Deuterium and Tritium were among the lightest isotopes and therefore had among the lowest Coulomb barrier. The Coulomb barrier was an energy "hill" created by the electrostatic repulsion between positively charged atomic nuclei, which must be overcome for them to get close enough for the strong nuclear force to bind them in a nuclear reaction, such as fusion. The higher the atomic mass of the source material and the target the greater the energy required to overcome their Coulomb barrier. For example, Oxygen (atomic mass 16) and Fluorine (atomic mass 19) would have required significantly higher energies to initiate fusion than Hydrogen – Hydrogen fusion into Helium which occurs in Earth’s sun. The high temperatures and pressures inside Earth’s sun currently cannot initiate fusion of Oxygen (atomic mass 16) and Fluorine (atomic mass 19). Only the cores of super massive stars with masses orders of magnitude greater than Earth’s sun were capable of initiate fusion of Oxygen (atomic mass 16) and Fluorine (atomic mass 19). The strength of the Coulomb barrier increases with the charge of the nuclei involved, making oxygen fusion more challenging than fusion of lighter elements like hydrogen. Consequently, Applicant’s claimed “beam-target fusion” with the significantly greater mass elements recited in Claim 14 has low predictability and would require extensive design and investment, validation and certification.; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)].
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1 - 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 – 22, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, l. 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “a metal”, and the claim also recites “in particular tungsten, iron or stainless steel” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 3, l. 4 and l. 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 12 recites the broad recitation “fluid is a gas”, and the claim also recites “in particular air” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 14, l. 2 and l. 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “a filter”, and the claim also recites “in particular a bag filter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding Claim 19, l. 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d) “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 22 recites the broad recitation “the fluid is a gas produced by chemical reaction of a liquid stored in the fluid reserve”, and the claim also recites “in particular by combustion” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the following claims:
Claim 7, l. 1 recites the limitation "the second target material".
Claim 9, l. 2 recites the limitation "the heat-transfer liquid cooling circuit".
Claim 22, l. 2 recites the limitation "the fluid reserve".
Claim 6, l. 2 recitation “comprising a second target material” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because “a second target material” implies that there is “a first target material”. However, Claim 6 depends from Claim 28 which depends from Claim 1. Neither Claim 1 nor Claim 28 recite “a first target material” or any “target material”. Therefore it is unclear if the “second target material” is the only target material or if there is a ‘first target material’ since the first enclosure contains a source material while the second enclosure comprising the second target material. Claim 7 depends from Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 19, ll. 1 – 2 recitation “a second cooling circuit configured so that a second heat-transfer liquid flows in the walls” is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention because “a second” implies that there is “a first”. However, Claim 19 depends from Claim 1 and Claim 1 does not recite any “cooling circuit” and does not recite any “heat-transfer liquid flow”. Therefore it is