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 and Claim Status
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II, Claims 16-20 and Species B (Figs. 7-8) in the replies filed on 07/30/25 and 10/27/25 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 17 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/25. Claim 17 is directed to Species A (see [0044] and Fig. 4), while claim 22 is directed to species C (see [0057] and Fig. 9).
3. Accordingly, claims 16-27 are pending, with claims 17 and 22 withdrawn. Claims 16, 18-21, and 23-27 are examined herein.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first drive and second drive must be shown in Fig. 8 or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show ref. 120 in Fig. 8 as described in the specification (see [0055]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
6. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "150" and "stationary ring B" both have been used to designate a first frame, while reference characters “140” and “stationary ring A” both have been used to designate a mounting frame. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
7. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is replete with inconsistencies. For example, paragraph [0057] refers to Fig. 8 but it clearly is intended to refer to Fig. 9, illustrating reference number 180. Applicant should not that this is an example of an inconsistency. The examiner cannot complete an exhaustive review of the specification for such errors.
8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 16, 18-21, and 23-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention lacks patentable utility.
11. The asserted utility of the present invention is “energy generation in fusion ignition” ([0004], [0012], [0029], [0037], [0063], [0067], claim 21). This asserted utility is not credible, because presently there are no known fusion devices capable of energy production. All known fusion devices operate at a net energy deficit.1 Additionally, there is no evidence of record to suggest that the claimed invention is capable of achieving fusion ignition, which is defined as the point at which a nuclear fusion reaction becomes self-sustaining.2
12. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational ICF system in the US. 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 system 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 NIF reactor has not yet demonstrated practical energy production – as stated by experts in the fusion community.34
13. The present disclosure fails to provide sufficient evidence that would allow a skilled artisan to judge the asserted utility of the present invention credible (MPEP 2107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
15. Claims 16, 18-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not , and 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.
16. As explained above, the art of inertial confinement fusion reactors is nascent. There are currently no known commercial reactors, and only one known reactor that has achieved useful results. The present disclosure is directed to a ICF fusion reactor target support that provides rotation of the target during irradiation with the laser beams. Focusing on the portion of the disclosure directed to the elected embodiment at Figs. 7-8, the following aspects of the invention lack sufficient description to enable one to make and use it:
How is the apparatus mounted within an ICF chamber? How is it integrated with the other elements of an ICF system?
How is the magnet embedded in the fusion target (as shown in Fig. 8?) How would one manufacture this target? How does the presence of the magnet affect the density of the fuel in the target during irradiation? It would seem that the magnet would impede the ability of the laser pulses to implode the target to sufficient fuel density to result in nuclear fusion?
The controller is merely described functionally and lacks any practical details necessary for its implementation in an ICF fusion reactor to effectively control the target rotation and laser irradiation necessary to achieve implosion of the target.
The invention appears to rely on sophisticated timing synchronization between the rotation of the target, its frame, and the pulses of laser emitted from the radiation sources of the ICF reactor (see claim 23 and [0062]), but there is no disclosure of any particulars for these parameters. The disclosure also omits a discussion of the calculations pertaining to these parameters and how one would implement the timing and synchronization aspects in the controller of the target holder. In contrast, George (cited on the attached PTO-892) includes multiple pages of such timing parameters and the calculations associated with them, so as to achieve synchronization of the laser beam pulses and the moving target in the ICF reactor chamber (see at least columns 10-12).
The specification admits “achieving spherical and stable compression may be an obstacle to ignition” ([0008]) while also indicating that the present invention does not even contemplate how one would achieve such conditions, stating instead that such parameters could be determined using artificial intelligence (claim 24, [0015], [0063]).
Thus, it is clear that the instant specification lacks sufficient detail to enable a skilled artisan to make and use the claimed invention.
17. Based on the evidence regarding the below factors (In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the specification at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
The nature of the invention: the present invention is directed to a target holder for an ICF reactor.
The state of the prior art: ICF reactors are in the research and development stage. Only one such reactor, the NIF (see above) has achieved notable successful results.
The level of predictability in the art: because ICF R&D is nascent and there are very few ICF reactors that have been constructed and used to achieve nuclear fusion reactions, this art area is unpredictable. Additionally, a search revealed only one relevant prior art document (George et al., US 4,205,278 at Fig. 5) pertaining to a rotating target holder in an ICF fusion reactor, indicating that such a mechanism is, as yet, undeveloped. Moreover, the examiner is unaware of any ICF fusion targets having an embedded magnet therein, as disclosed in Fig. 8.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: the disclosure as filed does not describe sufficient structural details and operating parameters to allow one to make and use the claimed invention (see explanation above).
The absence of working examples indicates one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been enabled to make the claimed invention.
Therefore, undue experimentation would be necessary to practice the claimed invention. At best, the disclosure sets forth a theoretical concept that might be applicable to target irradiation in an ICF reactor. The specification, however, fails to disclose the practical details necessary to implement the use of the claimed target holden in an ICF reactor much less to successfully use the claimed invention for the asserted utility of energy generation by fusion ignition. The full scope of research and development would be required before the claimed invention could even be considered ready for an irradiation experiment in an ICF reactor.
The breadth of claims and the level of skill in the art are not significant factors in this enablement analysis.
18. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
19. Claims 16, 18-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
20. The claims are replete with functional language that merely describes a desired result rather than any concrete structure or particular configuration of claim elements. See MPEP 2173.05(g): “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear.” Examples of unclear functional language include the claim 16 recitation “wherein a system controller selectively controls..” This language does not positively introduce a controller as an element of the claimed apparatus and merely describes the controller in terms of its intended use. Consequently, the configuration of the controller recited functionally later in claim 16 and again in dependent claims 18, 23, 24, and 25. Additionally, the recitation of both “the system controller” and “ the controller” imparts further uncertainty into the claims. It is noted that the disclosure fails to describe the claimed controller in any structural terms or to include a description of the particular hardware associated with the controller, so one cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of this claim term. Claim 21 is another example of purely functional claiming that is indefinite. It is unclear what structure the apparatus must possess to achieve this limitation.
21. Additionally, claim 16 is indefinite because it lacks correspondence with the specification. The elected embodiment of the target apparatus (Figs. 7 and 8) appears to include only a single rotating frame, whereas the claimed apparatus requires two rotating frames. The depicted embodiment of the apparatus lacks a first drive and a second drive.
22. Finally, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a target comprising a magnet as depicted in Fig. 8. The elected embodiment of the apparatus as shown in Fig. 7 can only cause rotation of the target by interaction between the electromagnets on the frame and the magnet within the target (see [0055]). There is no recitation in any of the claims of this essential target structure.
23. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
35 USC § 102 and 103
24. It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §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.” Therefore, no art rejections have been made.
Interviews
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 Conn, R. “Nuclear Fusion,” Britannica Online Encyclopedia, 2024.
2 Fusion ignition - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition; Achieving Fusion Ignition | National Ignition Facility & Photon Science https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition
3 Nuclear-Fusion Lab Achieves Ignition https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7
4 National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal -https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#