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 .
Specification
The specification1 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide an adequate written description of the invention and further for failing to provide an enabling disclosure.
The invention that one skilled in the art must be enabled to make and use is that defined by the claim(s) of the particular application (in this case, claims 1–7). A patent claim is invalid if it is not supported by an enabling disclosure.
There is no reputable evidence of record to support the claim that the present invention involves nuclear fusion (“one proton p is with another proton p to obtain heat by that phenomenon which is called nuclear fusion,” Specification, ¶ 55); nor does the Specification provide acceptable evidence that the invention is capable of operating as indicated or capable of producing excess heat (“exothermic reactions,” Specification, ¶¶ 50–51).
Applicant asserts many utilities for the invention, namely producing large amounts of energy, eliminating poisonous gases, and a nuclear reactor safer than current fission reactors:
“[P]oisonous gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH3) etc. can be made harmless,” ¶ 14
“[A] high heat occurs at time of fission in a chaining manner to increase the possibility of a big accident. Therefore, people expect a safer nuclear reactor,” ¶ 6
“[A]n extremely large energy can be generated in an extremely short time without application of law of conservation of energy,” Specification, ¶ 40
“Accordingly, as a physical phenomenon, energy may be generated,” Specification, ¶ 45
Therefore, the Specification purports to disclose a nuclear fusion device and method that generates a large energy gain from an exothermic nuclear fusion reaction.
However, the Specification does not enable the skilled artisan to produce a nuclear reaction by interacting an “amplification agent” with “electromagnetic waves,” claims 1 and 5.
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 University2 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.”
The “method of wave energy space reaction” and the “wave reaction apparatus” claimed by Applicant in claims 1 and 5 are not capable of producing or sustaining such reactions.
The invention provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion.
Instead, Applicant proposes a suspiciously simple mechanism for nuclear fusion: electromagnetic waves interact with a gas and a metal, thus resulting in nuclear fusion.
Applicant explains: “In a state wherein the fine particles move at a high speed in the wave energy space while being exposed to the electromagnetic waves, Na atoms of fine particles are ionized to become Na+ ion which is so formed that one electron is jumped out of each atom, Na2+ ion which is so formed that two electrons jump out of the Na atom . . . and Nax+ ion which is so formed that x electrons jump out of the Na atom, while these jumped electrons moves freely, and, at the same time, these Na ions are excited to increase those temperatures, so that a part of those ions is vaporized to fill the wave energy space with solid fine particles and vaporized Na ions. In this manner, ionized Na particles and free electrons coexist in the wave energy space, and this state may be called “plasma”. Energy of the plasma was measured by a plasma measurement device, and its result is shown in FIG. 7 as mentioned above in which current values oscillate violently up and down. The violent oscillation shows that energy of the wave energy space W goes up and down in an extremely short period of time. Accordingly, as a physical phenomenon, energy may be generated, in a state of pulses, intermittently as shown in FIG. 8,” Specification, ¶ 45.
Applicant claims that this occurs at a temperature of “500°C to 600°C,” Specification, ¶ 44 and ¶ 50. This is equivalent to 773 Kelvin to 873 Kelvin. As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the temperature required to nuclear fusion is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention fits squarely into the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
The presumption that nuclear fusion may occur in a low-temperature environment is wholly unsupported by modern nuclear and plasma physics. Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers published in which the Applicant’s “electromagnetic wave” theory for producing sustainable nuclear fusions reactions has been substantiated.
The well-accepted models pertaining to the structure of the atom and the mechanisms through which various nucleons and electrons interact are incompatible with Applicant’s electromagnetic wave theory.
In summary, Applicant’s “method of wave energy space reaction” and the “wave reaction apparatus” claimed by Applicant in claims 1 and 5 utilizing low-temperature nuclear fusion reactions triggered by electromagnetic waves is incompatible with the mechanisms of nuclear physics as understood by the person having ordinary skill in the art.
Reproducibility
The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP § 2164.03. The art of the present invention, a method and apparatus for generating and maintaining an exothermic fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via electromagnetic waves interacting with a metal (“amplification agent,” claims 1, 4, and 5) and a gas is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less predictability of results. 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 the same results. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) would be suspect.
Reproducibility of alleged low-temperature nuclear fusion results is a critical feature in determining if a disclosure adequately teaches other practitioners how to make and use an invention. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
Applicant has provided unsupported theory and speculative embodiments based upon questionable science. Therefore, such theories and the experimental results attributed to them are also questionable until such a time that Applicant rigorously proves that the suggested concepts are plausible and the calculations performed statistically sound. Since Applicant has not yet established the operability of the presently claimed invention, it is considered that the invention is lacking in utility. Given the state of the art as here discussed, it would be unreasonable to expect one skilled in the art to be able to make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Undue Experimentation
It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of Applicant’s invention.
In its present form, the disclosure is devoid of useful instruction that might enable a person skilled in the art to follow Applicant's methods, account or control for any necessary assumptions, or manipulate the input data with any expectation of how the outcome may be affected.
Applicant believes they have produced a successful method for achieving nuclear fusion (“one proton p is with another proton p to obtain heat by that phenomenon which is called nuclear fusion,” Specification, ¶ 55) sufficient to create large amounts of commercially viable energy (“[A]n extremely large energy can be generated in an extremely short time without application of law of conservation of energy,” Specification, ¶ 40), in a low-temperature environment (“500°C to 600°C,” ¶ 44).
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, Examiner summarizes the above-elaborated explanations as to why Applicant’s invention fails to satisfy the enablement requirement:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claims 1 and 5) are very broad: an interaction between a metal, gas, and electromagnetic waves creates “a high energy” from nuclear fusion.
(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 low energy nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply asserts that the invention operates due to quantum mechanics.
(G) The existence of working examples: No working examples are provided.
(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.
As evidenced above, the specification, in its present state, fails to teach a person having ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention, and the specification is therefore inadequate. The disclosed invention is not, as required by 35 U.S.C. 101, an operable invention of any practical use to the public. To be patentable, the claimed invention as a whole must be useful and accomplish a practical application. That is, it must produce a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544, 31 USPQ2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and also State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373-4, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 851 (1999). The purpose of this 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 hopeful concept, or subject matter that is simply a starting point for future investigation or research. For more examples of this real-world applicability requirement being applied, see Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 528-36, 148 USPQ 689, 693-96 (1966); In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 76 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Ziegler, 992 F.2d 1197, 1200-03, 26 USPQ2d 1600, 1603-06 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a method of wave energy space reaction” in the preamble, “in accordance with uncertainty principle,” “some protons and neutrons oscillates,” “to cut off nuclear force,” and “to separate protons and neutrons with each other” should be corrected for proper grammar. In claim 3, “rectangular” should be “rectangle,” and “a” should precede each of the shapes. 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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the detailed reasons provided above in the Specification objection that are accordingly incorporated herein.
Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a device for producing energy for practical applications from a low-temperature nuclear fusion reaction. The production of said energy from a low-temperature fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility: achieve nuclear fusion (Specification, ¶ 55) for producing large amounts of energy (¶¶ 40, 45, 50–51 and claim 1: “a high energy is generated”) while eliminating poisonous gases (¶ 14) in a low-temperature environment (“500°C to 600°C,” ¶ 44). In describing said specified utility, Applicant has set forth the inadequately supported theory that electromagnetic waves interacting with a gas and a metal can produce and sustain thermonuclear reactions (Specification, ¶ 55). This fact creates a type of deficiency in which an assertion of specific and substantial utility for the claimed invention made by an Applicant is not credible. See MPEP 2107.01(II) for further examples of the Federal courts’ treatment of inventions claiming incredible utility. 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. As set forth in the objection to the Specification above, there is currently no reputable evidence of record to indicate the invention has been reduced to the point of providing an operative low-temperature nuclear fusion system. See also In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable and therefore lacking in utility for its purported purpose of creating the viable amounts of energy disclosed.
Claims 1–7 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility, for the reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification as well as in the section just above this one, which are accordingly incorporated herein.
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 1–7 are 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, for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification, which are accordingly incorporated herein.
Claims 1–7 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.
Claims 1–7 are still further rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the Specification as well as in the 101 section above, which are accordingly incorporated herein; as such, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1–7 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 Mizuno (US 2013/0188763) publication cited herein. Mizuno discloses a low-temperature apparatus for producing energy by applying electromagnetic waves to a gas within a reactor vessel, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown in the above objection to the Specification, this apparatus is a variation of the “cold fusion” concept that remains unproven and unworkable. Accordingly, if Applicant's cold fusion apparatus is operative, while Mizuno’s is not, then the Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant's disclosure that makes Applicant's invention operative.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–7 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the elements that make Applicant’s cold fusion apparatus operative, while all those in the prior art (e.g., Mizuno, US 2013/0188763) are not operative. This rejection is related to the above 112(a) best mode rejection. The Examiner can only conclude that if Applicant’s apparatus and method are operative, but Mizuno’s is not, then there must be omitted elements that are critical or essential to the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an amplification agent is accommodated in a reaction cylinder ejecting electromagnetic waves”. It is unclear if the agent or the cylinder is ejecting the waves.
In claim 1, it is unclear what the subject of “…by being heated to amplify energy” is. The waves, the agent, or the cylinder?
The term “high” in claims 1 and 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. Specifically, it is unclear what amount of energy is considered “high” versus “low”.
Claim 1 recites “the vacuum space…is collapsed” and then “collapse of the vacuum space.” It is unclear if these refer to the same collapse or different collapses.
Claim 1 recites “the high energy…is absorbed by collapse of the vacuum space.” It is unclear what is absorbing the high energy.
Claims 2, 3, and 4 have the preamble “a wave reaction method.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
The term “many” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “many” 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.
Claim 3 recites “standing waves.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "etc." renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " etc."), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites “the gas” in the singular, but then lists 3 gases. It is unclear if only one of the listed gases is required, or if all three must be present.
The term “fine” in claims 1 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claims, 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.
In claim 5, it is unclear what the subject of “each having a smaller mas than iron” is. Similarly, it is unclear what the subject of “and which has wave nature and particle nature at the same time” is.
Claim 7 recites “the heating device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the suffix "-like" in the term “bandlike” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites “the outer circumferential surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1–7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 2013/0188763).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno discloses (e.g., Figure 29) a method of wave energy space reaction, wherein: an amplification agent (314) is accommodated in a reaction cylinder (310) ejecting electromagnetic waves by being heated to amplify energy of the electromagnetic waves so as to form a wave energy space therein including ionized fine particles of the amplification agent and electrons (“When the reaction agent 314 is heated at a temperature of 400 to 500° C. without oxygen in air, vaporous minute particles are dispersed from the surface of the reaction agent to produce a plasma atmosphere together with the metal element supplying body, namely, the inner surface of the reaction cell 301, the fins 313 and the outer surface of the heating pipe 311,” ¶ 137); a high energy (“The mixed gas performs a fusion reaction to generate thermal energy,” ¶ 135) is generated intermittently in accordance with uncertainty principle; both atoms of the amplification agent and gas to be treated comprise masses smaller than iron (as cited above), and each atom has a nucleus with a vacuum space in which some protons and neutrons oscillates; when the vacuum space is exposed to the high energy, it is collapsed to cut off nuclear force held in the vacuum space so as to separate protons and neutrons with each other (“The mixed gas performs a fusion reaction to generate thermal energy,” ¶ 135); and the high energy generated in the wave energy space is absorbed by collapse of the vacuum space (“The mixed gas performs a fusion reaction to generate thermal energy,” ¶ 135).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the reaction cylinder ejects electromagnetic waves including many and different amplitudes and frequencies (electromagnetic waves comprise different wavelengths, as is known in the art).
Regarding claim 3, Mizuno anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the reaction cylinder is in the shape of circle, rectangular or hexagon, in cross section and ejects standing waves by its heating (“ cylindrical casing 310,” ¶ 133).
Regarding claim 4, Mizuno anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the amplification agent comprises at least one atom of alkaline metals (Na, K, Li, etc .), alkaline earth metals (Mg, Ca, etc .) and active metals (Zn,Al,etc.) or at least one compound including the one atom in those metals (“potassium hydroxide (KOH), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium titanate (K2TiO3) may be accommodated in the reaction cell,” ¶ 15), and the gas to be treated in the reaction cylinder is carbon dioxide (CO2), steam (H20) and ammonia (NH3) (“steam,” ¶ 135).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno discloses (e.g., Figure 29) a wave reaction apparatus comprising: a reaction cylinder (310) which is made of material for ejecting electromagnetic waves by its heating; an amplification agent (314) which is accommodated in the reaction cylinder in order to amplify energy of the electromagnetic waves and which has a smaller mass than iron; a heating equipment (311, 312) for heating the reaction cylinder and the amplification agent; a wave energy space, formed in the reaction cylinder, which includes therein a first mixture of ionized fine particles as the amplification agent (“potassium hydroxide (KOH), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium titanate (K2TiO3) may be accommodated in the reaction cell,” ¶ 15) and electrons jumping out of the fine particles or a second mixture of the first mixture and constituent atoms, in gas to be treated (“steam,” ¶ 135), each having a smaller mass than iron and which has wave nature and particle nature at the same time; and a vacuum space which is formed in each of nuclei of atoms in the amplification agent and the gas to be treated (“potassium hydroxide (KOH), sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or potassium titanate (K2TiO3) may be accommodated in the reaction cell,” ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the reaction cylinder is made of stainless steel or iron (“The reaction cell 1 is made of metal, e.g., SUS304…or iron,” ¶ 59).
Regarding claim 7, Mizuno anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the heating device (311, 312) comprises a bandlike electric heater wound on the outer circumferential surface of the reaction cylinder (310).
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.
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 Specification citations herein refer to the published application US20240379251A1.
2 See attached page from Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html