DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A, 1, and X in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species contain overlapping subject matter and therefore do not impose a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the species do not, by definition, contain overlapping subject matter because they are mutually exclusive. For example, neutronic fusion and aneutronic fusion are non-overlapping because you cannot simultaneously have fusion with neutrons and fusion with no neutrons. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 4, 11, 14, and 15 are withdrawn because they are directed to non-elected species.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are examined herein.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 14, “the said” is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility.
In Brenner v. Manson, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—the is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) accordingly explains that the purpose of the utility requirement is “to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research.” MPEP § 2103, A., I.
Thus USPTO has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt an Appellant's presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.”’ In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the claims are directed to an approach to nuclear fusion which Applicants identify as enabled from filling a magnetic chamber with hydrogen and adding voltage. Claims 1 and 8 taken together, for example, recite:
“A controlled fusion reactor comprising: two bowl-shaped magnetic arrays … with each magnetic array having an electrode … wherein high-voltage high frequency direct current electricity is supplied to the electrodes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 7 further delineate that the alleged fusion reaction is caused from the fusion of hydrogen gas with boron.
Applicant asserts that the present invention is for production of useful electricity from nuclear fusion (“…the main use for the current invention is to produce electrical charges through the aneutronic fusion of hydrogen and boron. The electrical charges produced in the fusion of boron and hydrogen can then be collected and converted into useable electrical power,” Specification1, ¶ 42) and appears to acknowledge how simple the invention is compared to the complex nature of conventional fusion reactors (e.g., “This invention also provides a far less costly and simpler method of fusing elements than any prior art,” Specification, ¶ 3).
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented an apparatus for achieving fusion yielding a positive energy output without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion2. For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core3. Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more. Indeed, the claimed apparatus when read in light of the Specification operates as significantly lower temperatures than would be needed for nuclear fusion to occur: “The present invention is able to fuse hydrogen and boron at much lower energies that [sic] what was previously believed,” ¶ 46. This is supported by the provisional application 63/310,541 from which the instant application claims priority: “The reactor described in this application can be designed to run … in ‘room temperature’ mode using Hydrogen and Boron. This ‘room temperature’ mode has many advantages including being able to produce electricity directly from the excess charges produced when hydrogen and boron fuse in an aneutronic manner,” page 1.
Although no one has yet created a commercially viable fusion reactor, Applicants assert precisely this specific utility:
“The electrical charges produced in the fusion of boron and hydrogen can then be collected and converted to useable electrical power much more easily than when fusing deuterium and tritium,” Specification, ¶ 42
“The present invention can be operated to fuse hydrogen and boron in an aneutronic reaction which will release electrical charges which are then collected and converted to useable electricity for home and industrial use,” Specification, ¶ 46
“[T]he excess electrical charges created in the hydrogen boron fusion reaction are pulled out in the form of useable electrical power,” Specification, ¶ 46
The Specification does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above. The lack of any experimental results, or of any supporting evidence from a third party, also weigh in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter, if even operative, lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Current publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear or cold—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted Dylla4, as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)—aspired to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.”
Further according to the official ITER5 webpage:
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to yield in its plasma a ten-fold return on power (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not convert the heating power it produces as electricity, but — as the first of all magnetic confinement fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain across the plasma (crossing the threshold of Q≥1) — it will prepare the way for the machines that can.”
There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational fusion system in the US to date that operates at extreme temperatures. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target. However, the laser system6 itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production—as stated by experts in the fusion community7,8.
When the most advanced thermonuclear fusion reactors in the world have yet to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims to (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion device that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a device achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s device relies on simply supplying voltage to a hydrogen gas in a magnetic chamber with boron and electrodes, claims 1 and 6–8, for nuclear fusion-induced electrical power production.
However, as is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures, such as those present on the sun. Georgia State University9 explains:
“The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107–108 K.”
Applicants have failed to sufficiently disclose how the claimed device for taking advantage of the “unique magnetic field within the bowl-shaped magnetic arrays,” Specification at ¶ 46, is capable of producing or sustaining a fusion reaction. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
To the contrary, the method of the instant invention operates at lower temperatures: “The present invention is able to fuse hydrogen and boron at much lower energies that [sic] what was previously believed,” ¶ 46. This is supported by the provisional application 63/310,541 from which the instant application claims priority: “The reactor described in this application can be designed to run … in ‘room temperature’ mode using Hydrogen and Boron. This ‘room temperature’ mode has many advantages including being able to produce electricity directly from the excess charges produced when hydrogen and boron fuse in an aneutronic manner,” page 1.
As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s “room temperature” corresponds to 293–298 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention appears to fit squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing “less costly and simpler” energy production (e.g., see Spec. at ¶ 3) but without any of the consequences (e.g., the necessity of confining an extremely hot nuclear reaction without melting the reactor).
Applicant’s cold nuclear fusion allegedly occurs due to the “bowl-shaped magnetic fields that this invention uses,” Specification at ¶ 3 and “bowl-shaped magnetic arrays,” claim 1. However, a review of the scientific literature finds no support whatsoever for this desired result, let alone simply from energizing an electrode in the presence of boron, hydrogen, and a magnetic field, as recited in claims 1 and 6-8.
For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
The claimed invention for generating and maintaining an exothermic cold fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via the formation of “bowl-shaped magnetic arrays” (claim 1) is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”). Reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions—a recipe—that would enable a skilled artisan to produce and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community (i.e., outside of Applicant’s own laboratory or simulations) has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
In view of the above, it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would doubt the effective obtention of a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful electricity as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims. Rather, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that as of the effective date, the claimed device was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejection, which are incorporated herein. The production of commercial electricity via a net-positive cold nuclear fusion is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (e.g., “The present invention can be operated to fuse hydrogen and boron in an aneutronic reaction which will release electrical charges which are then collected and converted to useable electricity for home and industrial use,” Specification, ¶ 46). Applicant’s invention is disclosed as operating at energy ranges (“much lower energies that [sic] what was previously believed,” Specification at ¶ 45 and “room temperature,” provisional Specification at page 1) many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion. The ordinary skilled artisan would find it more likely than not that Applicant’s invention was neither (a) net-energy-producing hot fusion, nor (b) cold fusion because, as detailed above: regarding (a), net-energy-producing hot nuclear fusion has never yet been observed; and regarding (b), cold fusion is considered unworkable by the scientific community. The Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant's invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. See In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable, i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the Applicant.
As set forth in MPEP § 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted,
“Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the Specification cannot enable one to use it.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility for the same reasons set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (which are incorporated herein), one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are further rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejections, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, and 16-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
To be enabling, the disclosure, as filed, must be sufficiently complete to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and a use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of the claimed invention.
Applicant asserts they have produced an operative device for achieving controlled nuclear fusion for useful electricity production (claim 1 and Specification at ¶ 46) in a low-temperature environment (Specification at ¶ 46 and provisional Specification at page 1).
To determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, a determination that the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement. Specifically:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claim 1) are very broad: a hydrogen chamber surrounded by a magnetic field supplies voltage to an electrode, followed by the desired result of the world’s first-ever net-positive nuclear fusion device (“…a controlled fusion reactor,” claim 1).
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who can create and operate nuclear fusion reactors using conventional technology that do not produce net positive energy.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant’s disclosure does not provide the necessary step-by-step guide to actually achieve the claimed end goal of self-sustained/breakeven nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply asserts that the invention operates as alleged due to “the unique magnetic field within the bowl-shaped magnetic arrays” (¶ 46, Specification).
(G) The existence of working examples: The Specification does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity as asserted. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion. Nor is there evidence that the provided example has been reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: The quantity of experimentation needed is unreasonable because the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention.
Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 1–20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same magnetic orientation" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no orientation has yet been introduced, and so it is unclear as to what orientation the arrays are the “same.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no axis has yet been introduced, and so it is unclear as to what axis the arrays are the “same.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wide end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the wide end of each magnetic array facing each other.” It is unclear what “each other” means in this limitation. What structure is facing which other structure?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said plurality of magnets" repeatedly throughout the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Specifically, the claim recites that there are two arrays, and each array comprises a plurality of magnets. Therefore, when “said plurality of magnets” is recited later in the claim, it is unclear if this refers to the magnets of the first array or the magnets of the second array.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "arrays" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how this recitation of “arrays” differs from, or overlaps with, the “arrays” recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "all the same magnetic poles" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " all the same magnetic poles facing inwards" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no relative inward/outward orientation has yet been properly introduced, and so it is unclear relative to what the poles are facing inwards.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a wide end" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how “a wide end” in line 6 differs from, or relates to, the “wide end” introduced in line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said arrays" and “said array” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how this/these array/arrays differ from, or relate to, the “arrays” recited in line 1. Additionally, it is unclear how the “arrays” (plural) can comprise a single “wide end.” It is still further unclear why the “arrays” comprise a single “wide end,” yet the “array” (singular) comprises a single “narrow end.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said wide end" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this wide end refers back to the wide end of line 2 or the wide end of line 6.
The term “in proximity” in claim 1 at line 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close to, or far from, the array the object must/can be in order to be considered “in proximity.”
Claim 1 repeats the limitations "said array" in lines 9, 10 (three times), and 11 and recites “said magnetic array” in line 12, and further recites “each magnetic array” in line 12, and still further recites “each said magnetic array” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Again, it is unclear which array is being referred to since line 1 introduced “two bowl-shaped magnetic arrays.”
Claim 1 recites “said array further comprising a radius for a parabolic curvature of said magnetic array.” Examiner cannot extract any meaning from this limitation. The claim already recited that the array comprises a diameter (line 10) and therefore it necessarily comprises a radius. It is unclear what is the relationship is between the aforecited diameter and the newly recited radius. It is further unclear how a radius can be “for a parabolic curvature.” This wording does not make sense.
The term “near” in claim 1 at line 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close to, or far from, the aperture the electrode must/can be in order to be considered “near.”
Claim 1 at lines 12-13 recites “each magnetic array having an electrode positioned near said aperture.” It is unclear if there is one electrode and one aperture, or two electrodes and two apertures, e.g., one for each array, or something else.
Claim 1 at line 13 recites “with each magnetic array having … a conductive screen.” It is unclear if there is one conductive screen or two conductive screens, e.g., one for each array.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wide end" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this wide end refers back to the wide end of line 2 or the wide end of line 6 or the wide end of line 8.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outer rim" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "opposite electrical polarity" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no “electrical polarity” of the electrode has yet been introduced, and thus it is unclear how it means to be “opposite” of the polarity of the electrode.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the magnetic orientation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "one bowl-shaped magnetic field". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No magnetic field has yet been introduced. Additionally, it is unclear which “one” is being referred to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "all the north magnetic poles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this refers to the magnetic field of claim 2 or the north poles in line 4 of claim 1. The term “all” also has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "poles face inwards" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no relative inward/outward orientation has yet been properly introduced, and so it is unclear relative to what the poles are facing inwards. Additionally, the “inwards towards the center” direction of a bowl could have multiple meanings, e.g., the lowest center of gravity of a bowl surface or the space in a plane opposite such a surface.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bowl-shaped array". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the opposite bowl-shaped magnetic array". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "all the south magnetic poles". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this refers to the magnetic field of claim 2 or the south poles in line 4 of claim 1. The term “all” also has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "poles face inwards" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no relative inward/outward orientation has yet been properly introduced, and so it is unclear relative to what the poles are facing inwards. Additionally, the “inwards towards the center” direction of a bowl could have multiple meanings, e.g., the lowest center of gravity of a bowl surface or the space in a plane opposite such a surface.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "both bowl-shaped magnetic arrays electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same electrical polarity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what electrical polarity is being referred to and how it relates to that recited in line 14 of claim 1.
The term “high” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how what the boundaries/cut-offs must/can be in order to be considered “high” vacuum level. It is further unclear what is meant by “vacuum level,” as this is not a known term of the art.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear if each array has its own vacuum-maintaining apparatus, or if they share a common vacuum apparatus.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear where “the area between” the arrays is positioned because no recitation has yet been made that describes the physical arrangement of a first array relative to a second array.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the area". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear where “the area between” the arrays is positioned because no recitation has yet been made that describes the physical arrangement of a first array relative to a second array.
The term “high” in claims 8–10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how what the boundaries/cut-offs must/can be in order to be considered “high” voltage and “high” frequency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "one electrode" and “the opposite electrode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear how these electrodes relate to the “electrode” introduced in line 12 of claim 1. It is further unclear what is meant by “opposite.” In what manner, i.e., polarity or physical arrangement, is the first electrode “opposite” the second electrode?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the conductive screens". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each electrode" twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by electricity supplied to electrodes (plural) and screens (plural) “in a sequence of different frequencies.” This could be interpreted in many ways. Do the electrodes receive a first frequency and the screens a second frequency, or does a first electrode receive a first frequency and a second electrode receive a second frequency? It is unclear how the “sequence” is applied. Are the frequencies sequential, and if so, are the electrodes’ frequencies sequential, or are the screens’ frequencies sequential, or both? And what is meant by “sequence of different frequencies”? If the frequency is alternating between two values, is this considered a sequence of different frequencies? Or does each frequency have to be different from every other frequency? Examiner cannot extract and meaning from this limitation.
Claim 10 recites “independent high voltage sources.” From what are the high voltage sources independent? Additionally, why is “sources” plural? Does each electrode have multiple sources? Or is there one source for one electrode?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the frequency" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has just recited different frequencies, so it is unclear which frequency is meant by “the frequency.”
In claim 10, Examiner cannot extract any meaning from “so that the frequency of the high voltage electricity supplied to each electrode is the same or different.” This clause makes no sense on its own, and it further makes no sense in relation to the rest of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “same or different.” Same as what? Different from what?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear if the two magnetic arrays are held by the same “substrate base,” or if each array has its own substrate base.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a plurality of neodymium magnets". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the relationship is between these magnets and all the magnets introduced in parent claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "one magnetic array" and “the other magnetic array”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which of the “two bowl-shaped magnetic arrays” corresponds to which of these recited arrays.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a singular magnetic array". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, how can there be a singular magnetic array if there are two magnetic arrays? Additionally still, for what is the array being “used”? This appears an attempt at an intended use recitation, but no use is recited.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "multiple bowl-shaped arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the relationship is between these arrays and those introduced in claim 1.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the wide ends of all the arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation that the wide ends of all the arrays are "facing inwards". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no relative inward/outward orientation has yet been properly introduced, and so it is unclear relative to what the arrays/their ends are facing inwards.
Claim 18 recites that “arrays are oriented so that they form a spherical arrangement.” A sphere is shape, not an arrangement. It is unclear what is meant by forming an “arrangement.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "multiple electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what the relationship is between these electrodes and the electrode(s) already introduced in claim 1. Additionally, how can there be a multiple electrodes if there is a singular electrode? Additionally still, for what are the electrodes being “used”? This appears an attempt at an intended use recitation, but no use is recited.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the electrically conductive screen". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, how can there be a “solid electrically conductive material” instead of a screen, or it was already recited in claim 1 that there is a screen?
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the same shape or other shapes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is entirely unclear what shape/shapes is/are being referred to. Additionally, made in the same shape/shapes as what?
In claim 20, it is unclear what is the subject of the phrase “…and located around the outside of magnetic arrays.”
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the outside". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "magnetic arrays". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5–10, 12, 17, 19, and 20 are all rejected because they are not formatted as proper apparatus claims, leaving the Examiner unclear as to the metes and bounds of the claims, i.e., what structurally and functionally is actually being claimed. MPEP § 2114(II) states: “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Each of these claims recites either an intended use or desired result or a method performed by/on the apparatus (note that it is indefinite to have an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus within the same claim10). For example, claim 6 recites that “gas is supplied.” The act of supplying gas is an actionable step that belongs in a method claim, not in an apparatus claim. Claim 6 should instead recite the structure that supplies the hydrogen gas and then use “configured to” language, e.g., a gas canister is configured to supply hydrogen gas. However, Examiner cautions against introducing new matter. If there is no disclosed gas canister, then the claims cannot introduce a canister to overcome the rejection. Similarly,
claim 5 recites that a level “is maintained”
claim 7 recites that boron “is supplied”
claims 8–10 recites that electricity “is supplied”
claim 12 recites that arrays “are held”
claim 17 recites that a single array “is used”
claim 19 recites that electrodes “are used”
claim 20 recites that a screen “is replaced”
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.
It is possible that the above indefiniteness rejections are not exhaustive. Examiner asks for Applicant’s assistance in identifying and correcting any indefiniteness issues in the claims that were missed by the Examiner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites that there is a singular magnet array. This directly conflicts with parent claim 1, which recites two arrays. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites that there is no screen but there is instead a solid electrically conductive material. This directly conflicts with parent claim 1, which recites a screen. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaPoint (US 8,638,186) in view of Stelter (US 5,886,609).
Regarding claim 1, LaPoint discloses (see claims 1 and 7) an apparatus allegedly capable of functioning as a controlled fusion reactor comprising: a bowl-shaped magnetic array (“A magnetic array,” claim 1 and “said array comprises a bowl shape,” claim 7) of a magnetic orientation aligned on an axis with a wide end of the magnetic array facing a direction and the magnetic array comprising a plurality of magnets, said plurality of magnets comprising a plurality of north poles (“said plurality of magnets comprising a plurality of north poles”), said plurality of magnets further comprising a plurality of south poles (“said plurality of magnets further comprising a plurality of south poles”), said plurality of magnets being disposed to form an array with all the same magnetic poles facing inwards (“Either of the poles may face inwardly from the array to induce the ionic flow,” col. 5, ll. 35-36), said array comprising a wide end (“said array comprising a wide end”), said array further comprising a narrow end (“said array further comprising a narrow end”), said narrow end comprising an aperture (“said narrow end comprising an aperture”), said plurality of magnets being operable to induce an ionic flow (“said plurality of magnets being operable to induce an ionic flow”), said ionic flow being disposed to flow from said aperture towards said wide end (“The magnets may induce the ionic flow to flow from the wide end towards the narrow end. However, the ionic flow may reverse direction at a point past the aperture,” col. 7, ll. 38-40), said ionic flow being operable to manipulate at least one object positioned in proximity to said array (“said ionic flow being operable to manipulate at least one object positioned in proximity to said array”), wherein said array comprises a diameter (“wherein said array comprises a diameter”), said array further comprising a depth (“said array further comprising a depth”), said array further comprising a base and said array further comprising a radius for a parabolic curvature of said magnetic array (“said array further comprising a base and said array further comprising a radius for a parabolic curvature of said magnetic array”), and with the magnetic array having an electrode (34) positioned near said aperture (as shown in fig. 3: conductive object 34 approaches aperture 38) and a conductive screen (substrate 174 shown in fig. 17 may be comprised of metal, col. 10, l. 2) surrounding the outer rim of the wide end (as shown in fig. 17) of each said magnetic array with the said conductive screen being of opposite electrical polarity of said electrode (in order to allow the intended reversal due to opposite electrical charges: “The at least one object may also reverse direction in accordance to the ionic flow. In this manner, the at least one object may be repulsed after passing through the aperture,” col. 5, ll. 47-50).
LaPoint does not explicitly state there are two arrays.
Stelter does. Stelter is also in the art area of magnets (abstract) and teaches (fig. 8B) two magnetic arrays (806/804/807 and 808/805/809) of the same magnetic orientation (flux lines for 804 and 805 are both downward) aligned on the same axis with the wide end (lower end of 806/804/807 and upper end of 808/805/809) of each magnetic array facing each other and each magnetic array comprising a plurality of magnets (806/804/807 and 808/805/809). A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Stelter (col. 10, ll. 55-59), that this arrangement “has a significant impact on reducing leakage flux, as the permanent magnets are collectively pushing and concentrating the lines of flux back toward the pole pieces and the air gap to achieve a high flux density in the air gap.”
The combination of the two arrays of Stelter with the bowl-shaped array of LaPoint would have produced an arrangement of two bowl-shaped magnetic arrays facing each other with an aperture/gap between them, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of LaPoint, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Stelter’s two arrays facing each other with LaPoint's bowl-shape would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of two bowl-shaped arrays facing each other. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of, as described by Stelter (col. 10, ll. 55-59), that this arrangement “has a significant impact on reducing leakage flux, as the permanent magnets are collectively pushing and concentrating the lines of flux back toward the pole pieces and the air gap to achieve a high flux density in the air gap.”
Regarding claims 2–3, 5–10, 12–13, and 16–20:
Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections of these claims are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
Please refer to the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections made above, and, in particular, the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections which recite structures and functions that are directly in conflict with the recitations of independent claim 1 such that no reasonable prior art that applies to claim 1 could also apply to the rejected dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 All citations to the Specification herein refer to the PGPub US 2024/0274303.
2 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited October 27, 2025).
3 Id.
4 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
5 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>
6 https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition
7 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
8 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
9 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
10 A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).