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 without traverse of Group I and species A1, B2, B3, A4, and A5 in the reply filed on 3/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12 (non-elected species D3) and 28 (non-elected Group II) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/19/2026.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 are examined herein.
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 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 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 simply applying electromagnetic radiation to a material such as hydrogen. Claim 1, for example, recites:
A method for nuclear fusion comprising: providing a chamber … having a fusionable material … providing cycled electromagnetic radiation.
Claim 4 explains that the “fusionable material” may be hydrogen.
Claim 22 further recites that the energy/heat produced in claim 1 is sufficient to drive a generator.
The heat supplied to the generator as recited in the claims is produced via self-sustained nuclear fusion reactions, known as ignition or break-even or Q=1 in the art, and it means net-energy producing fusion where more power is output than was input1.
Applicant details how all previous attempts at creating and maintaining said nuclear fusion reactions have failed:
“Existing approaches for power or heat, or for converting heat into useful energy, may be deficient in one or more aspects. For instance, such approaches may be inefficient, suffer from low energy densities, utilize non-abundant supplies of fuel, or produce detrimental effects for society, such as by emitting carbon dioxide, radioactive byproducts, or other pollutants or by posing a weapons proliferation risk,” Specification at ¶ 2.
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a method 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. Instead, the instant invention abandons the Lawson criterion, operating differently, e.g., by simply irradiating a fusionable material with electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light from a lamp, ¶ 91 of the Specification).
Applicant asserts many utilities for the invention, namely producing large amounts of commercially viable electricity, powering batteries, and driving a steam turbine, all somehow without any nuclear byproducts or pollution:
“Heat provided by the nuclear fusion reactions described herein may be extracted for a useful purpose using a variety of thermodynamic processes. For instance, the heat may be extracted using a variety of thermodynamic cycles, such as a Stirling cycle, Brayton cycle, or Rankine cycle. The heat may be used to generate linear or rotational energy using a piston, turbine, steam engine, or any other energy-conversion device. The heat may be used for refrigeration by applying an absorptive refrigeration cycle,” Specification, ¶ 103
“[A] battery can be connected to a load that uses bursts of electricity from the battery, and a fusion catalyst can supply a low amount of current to the battery to keep it charged,” Specification, ¶ 104
“[Produce energy that does not] suffer from low energy densities, utilize non-abundant supplies of fuel, or produce detrimental effects for society, such as by emitting carbon dioxide, radioactive byproducts, or other pollutants or by posing a weapons proliferation risk,” Specification, ¶ 2
“[A] fusion catalyst core configured to generate steam to drive a steam turbine,” Specification, ¶ 94
“The semiconductor layer 910 may convert the kinetic energy of the nuclear fusion products directly into electricity… a charged helium nucleus generated in a fusion reaction with a kinetic energy of 1 MeV can generate a plurality of excited electron-hole pairs in a perovskite thin film via inelastic interactions with the film that can then be extracted as electricity,” Specification, ¶ 104
Therefore, the asserted specific utility is a nuclear fusion method that generates an energy gain capable of creating commercially viable amounts of power.
The Specification estimates theoretical outcomes based on the invention but does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy or “breakeven” fusion, 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 Specification simply assumes the break-even fusion condition is fulfilled: commercially viable electricity, powering batteries, and driving a steam turbine, as described in the Specification at ¶¶ 103-104), 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.
Applicant proposes a suspiciously simple mechanism for nuclear fusion: light waves interact with a target, thus resulting in nuclear fusion.
Applicant explains: “The methods and systems may utilize host materials (such as metal nanoparticles) to host fusionable materials (such as deuterium). The host materials and/or fusionable materials may be irradiated with electromagnetic radiation that induces phonon vibrations in the host material and/or fusionable materials. The phonon vibrations may screen the Coulombic repulsion between fusionable material nuclei, thereby increasing a rate of nuclear fusion even at relatively low temperature and pressures … The heat may be converted into useful energy,” Specification, ¶ 4.
Specifically for the input source of energy, Applicant suggests: “a laser, lamp, light-emitting diode (LED) or a terahertz (THz) light source or a broadband light source,” Specification, ¶ 91.
Simply put, Applicant claims that the simple application of light waves at low temperatures and pressures to a deuterium-loaded metal target will cause nuclear fusion for useful energy production.
However, 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 method for taking advantage of the hydrogen gas 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, Applicant repeatedly explains in the Specification that this occurs at low temperatures and pressures:
“nuclear fusion even at relatively low temperature and pressures,” ¶ 4
“a method for low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 6
“low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 25
“low energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 47
“low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 64
“low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 65
“low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 66
“At relatively low temperatures,” ¶ 69
“…enable the D-D nuclei to fuse at an elevated rate even at relatively lower temperature conditions,” ¶ 70
“Low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)…accompanied by the release of energy in the form of high energy particles, excited nuclear states, or heat,” ¶ 71
“…any method or system for low-energy nuclear fusion described herein,” ¶ 105
“The algorithm can, for example, direct the generation of power using energy from nuclear fusion or direct the generation of power using energy from low-energy nuclear fusion,” ¶ 116
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. Applicants have stated ad nauseum that their version of fusion occurs at “low” or “relatively low” temperatures. Applicant’s invention fits squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
As a note on terminology: low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR)—also known as cold fusion10—attempt to achieve nuclear fusion at temperatures less than those known to achieve fusion ignition.
In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing net-positive, clean energy (Spec. at ¶ 4) for solving the fusion industry’s woes (Spec. at ¶ 2) but without any of the consequences (e.g., the necessity of confining an extremely hot nuclear reaction without melting the reactor walls).
Applicant’s cold nuclear fusion allegedly occurs due to a reliance on “electromagnetic radiation that induces phonon vibrations … [that] may screen the Coulombic repulsion between fusionable material nuclei, thereby increasing a rate of nuclear fusion,” (Spec. at ¶ 4); however, no adequate explanation is provided as to how the skilled artisan may practically manipulate said electromagnetic radiation to achieve the claimed result of useful energy from cold nuclear fusion. Moreover, a review of the scientific literature finds no support whatsoever for such effects having the alleged intended result of cold nuclear fusion, let alone simply from applying electromagnetic radiation/light to hydrogen/deuterium, as recited in claims 1 and 4.
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 (a) to already be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a method achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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 method was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 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 specific, asserted utility (Specification at ¶¶ 103-104). Applicant’s invention is disclosed as operating at energy ranges 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 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 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 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 are further rejected under 35 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 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the best mode contemplated by the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the disclosure of the Hagelstein publication (US 2009/0086877) cited herein. Hagelstein discloses a low-temperature method for producing thermal energy by applying electromagnetic radiation to a hydrogen material, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown in the above objection to the Specification, this method is a variation of the “cold fusion” concept that remains unproven and unworkable. Accordingly, if Applicant's cold fusion method is operative, while Hagelstein’s is not, then the Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant's disclosure that makes Applicant's invention operative.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, 24, and 25 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 method for achieving controlled nuclear fusion for useful electricity production (claims 1 and 22 and Specification at ¶¶ 103-104) in a low-temperature environment (see above 101 rejection section citing numerous Specification paragraphs for low-energy nuclear reactions).
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 claim to power a generator via nuclear fusion by simply providing light wave radiation onto a fusionable hydrogen material as recited in claims 1, 4, and 22, is extremely broad, as evidenced by its too-simple-to-be-true steps for the alleged light-induced nuclear fusion (“providing cycled electromagnetic radiation to said fusionable material,” 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 cannot be ascertained because the art encompassing low-temperature nuclear fusion research lies within the realm of fringe science and subsequently does not possess a recognizable standard level of associated skill.
(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 cold nuclear fusion. Wholly insufficient direction is provided to enable the skilled artisan to reproduce the alleged effects.
(G) The existence of working examples: The Specification does not provide working examples. Nor is there evidence that the invention 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 13-17, 19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagelstein (US 2009/0086877).
Regarding claim 1, Hagelstein discloses an alleged method (e.g., Fig. 24) for nuclear fusion comprising: a) providing a chamber comprising a host material (202) having a fusionable material (e.g., “deuterium,” ¶ 312) coupled thereto; b) providing cycled electromagnetic radiation (204; “electromagnetic radiation,” ¶ 313; “10 cycles of oscillation,” ¶ 77; “load cycle … run cycle,” ¶ 282) to said fusionable material in said chamber to generate oscillations within said host material or said fusionable material, which oscillations are sufficient to subject said fusionable material to a nuclear fusion reaction to yield energy in said chamber (“an excitation source 204 arranged to stimulate the material 202 to generate [nuclear fusion] reactions in the material 202,” ¶ 312); and c) extracting (206) at least a portion of said energy from said chamber (“a load 206 arranged to remove energy generated by the reactions from the material 202,” ¶ 312).
Regarding claim 2, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said host material comprises one or more members selected from the group consisting of a metal, a metal hydride, a metal carbide, a metal nitride, and a metal oxide (e.g., ¶¶ 316–320).
Regarding claim 3, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said host material comprises one or more particles comprising a characteristic dimension of at most about 1,000 nanometers (nm) (“carbon nanotubes11,” ¶ 322).
Regarding claim 4, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said fusionable material comprises one or more members selected from the group consisting of: hydrogen, deuterium, lithium, and boron (“deuterium,” ¶ 312).
Regarding claim 5, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said oscillations comprise lattice oscillations of one or more members selected from the group consisting of said host material and said fusionable material (e.g., “the vibrational motion [e.g., due to highly excited phonon modes] of the material 202 is generated from the nuclear reactions occurring therein,” ¶ 315).
Regarding claim 6, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said lattice oscillations comprise coherent oscillations (e.g., “phonon coherence domain,” ¶ 224).
Regarding claim 7, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said lattice oscillations persist for at least about one oscillation period (e.g., “periodic or non-periodic dynamic fashion,” ¶ 313).
Regarding claim 8, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said coherent oscillations comprise phonon oscillations (e.g., “phonon coherence domain,” ¶ 224).
Regarding claim 13, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said electromagnetic radiation comprises one or more frequencies between 1 terahertz (THz) and 50 THz (“The excitation source 204 can provide modulated energy to the material with a modulation frequency over the full range of acoustic frequencies, i.e., above zero as to about 5.5 THz,” ¶ 349).
Regarding claim 14, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said electromagnetic radiation comprises one or more frequencies corresponding to a fundamental, harmonic, or sub-harmonic lattice frequency or surface vibration frequency of said host material or said fusionable material or said fusionable material dissolved in said host material (“harmonic oscillator,” ¶ 209; “5.5 THz [acoustical phonons] and at 8 THz [optical phonons]. In all other cases, the efficient coupling of electromagnetic radiation to the phonon modes of interest,” ¶ 86).
Regarding claim 15, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said energy comprises one or more members selected from the group consisting of: heat, kinetic energy of charged particles, coherent oscillations, and kinetic motion of charged product nuclei (as described in ¶ 314).
Regarding claim 16, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses further comprising containing said host material within a heat transfer material configured to extract said heat (heat transfer as described in ¶ 314).
Regarding claim 17, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said heat transfer material comprises a thermal conductivity of at least about 1 Watt meters-1 Kelvin-1 (W m-1 K-1) (the Specification at ¶ 5 states that carbon nanotubes fulfill this limitation: Hagelstein, “carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 322).
Regarding claim 19, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said heat transfer material comprises a porous (“carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 322; carbon nanotubes are necessarily porous, as they have many gaps and openings) medium thermal conductivity material having a higher thermal conductivity region nearer to said host material and a lower thermal conductivity region further from said host material (“carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 322: there will necessarily be portions of the carbon nanotubes that are closer to the host material than the air or water filling the gaps within the nanotubes; said air/water will necessarily have a lower thermal conductivity than the known high thermal conductivity of the carbon nanotube material itself).
Regarding claim 21, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said heat transfer material comprises one or more members selected from the group consisting of: carbon nanotubes (CNTs), single- walled CNTs, double-walled CNTs, multi-walled CNTs, graphite, graphene, diamond, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, and aluminum nitride (“carbon nanotubes,” ¶ 322).
Regarding claim 22, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses further comprising: containing said heat transfer material within a heat exchange fluid; and using said heat exchange fluid to drive a generator (e.g., “direct coupling of vibrational motion into electrical energy [e.g., electricity],” ¶ 332).
Regarding claim 24, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses further comprising providing a system for generating temperature and pressure oscillations (e.g., “relatively small changes in temperature and/or pressure conditions,” ¶ 230; “gas pressure can be reduced,” and “temperature can be reduced,” ¶ 86 at n) of said fusionable material in a gaseous form (“hydrogen gas,” ¶ 226), which oscillations are sufficient to control a chemical activity at a surface of said host material (this is a desired result-type clause that is not given patentable weight by Examiner).
Regarding claim 25, Hagelstein anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein said cycled electromagnetic radiation comprises a cycling of intensity, frequency, on-off state, duration, or any combination thereof (e.g., “10 cycles of oscillation,” ¶ 77; “load cycle … run cycle,” ¶ 282).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 “Fusion ‘ignition’ refers to the moment when a controlled fusion reaction generates more energy than is needed to spark the reaction: as much or more energy ‘out’ than ‘in’.” <lasers.llnl.gov/science/ignition>.
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 .
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: <hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
10 Low-energy nuclear reactions are frequently abbreviated as LENR and are another term for cold fusion in the art. See page 4 of the attached NPL document wherein, on June 7, 2018, one of Applicant’s peers, i.e., a cold fusion advocate, in the cold fusion/LENR field—Dr. David Nagel—presented a PowerPoint to the Patent Office and provided a list of new terms for “cold fusion.”
11 Carbon nanotubes have diameters around 0.5-2.0 nanometers.
< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube >
Prosecution Insights