DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrase “an areal density of less than approximately 1 g/cm2 at ignition” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
The phrase “doping the mixture of the central region with less than approximately 1% of total mass with a material having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive” allows for a doping mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the “stability of a interface” is increased. It is also unclear how the phrase further limits the method.
The use of “first shell” when there is no mention of a “second shell” is unclear and confusing. The use of “first shell” implies that there is a “second shell” in the same claim. However, claim 1 lacks mention of a “second shell”. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete. An independent claim’s clarity should be able to stand on its own, without relying on the subject matter in some later dependent claim.
The phrase “configuring an ICF target to achieve a uniform temperature and density profile when imploding” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how the skilled artisan would know whether a uniform temperature and density profile is achieved before the target is actually imploded. As best understood, the phrase is being interpreted as “configuring an ICF target”.
It is unclear whether the “areal density” is the original areal density, an areal density after ignition, or an areal density at some other time.
It is unclear when the step of “increasing the stability” occurs. For example, it is unclear whether the doping is adjusted after the step of “doping the mixture of the central region”. It is unclear whether the doping is adjusted during the step of “doping the mixture of the central region”.
Claim 3
The phrase “an areal density of less than approximately 0.5 g/cm2 at ignition” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
Claim 4
The phrase “doping the mixture of the central region with less than approximately 0.5% of total mass with a material having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive” allows for a doping mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the “stability of a interface” is increased. It is also unclear how the phrase further limits the method.
Claim 5
The phrase “doping the mixture of the central region with less than approximately 0.25% of total mass with a material having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive” allows for a doping mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the “stability of a interface” is increased. It is also unclear how the phrase further limits the method.
Claims 7 and 10
The use of “outer fuel region” when there is no mention of a “inner fuel region” is unclear and confusing. The use of “outer fuel region” implies that there is an “inner fuel region” in the claim. However, these claims lacks mention of an “inner fuel region”. Thus, these claims appear to be incomplete.
The use of “outer shell” when there is no mention of a “inner shell” is unclear and confusing. The use of “outer shell” implies that there is an “inner shell” in the claim. However, these claims lacks mention of an “inner shell”. Thus, these claims appear to be incomplete.
Claim 9
The phrase “an areal density of less than 0.7 g/cm2 ” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
Claim 11
The phrase “an areal density of less than approximately 1 g/cm2 at ignition” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
The phrase “at least one of the plurality of fusion fuel materials from the mixture in the central region has less than approximately 1% of total mass of a material having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive” allows for a mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the phrase further limits the system structure.
The use of “first shell” when there is no mention of a “second shell” is unclear and confusing. The use of “first shell” implies that there is a “second shell” in the same claim. However, claim 11 lacks mention of a “second shell”. Thus, the claim appears to be incomplete. An independent claim’s clarity should be able to stand on its own, without relying on the subject matter in some later dependent claim.
The phrase “an ICF target to achieve a uniform temperature and density profile when imploding” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how the skilled artisan would know whether a uniform temperature and density profile is achieved before the target is actually imploded. As best understood, the phrase is being interpreted as “an ICF target”.
It is unclear whether the “areal density” is the original areal density, an areal density after ignition, or an areal density at some other time.
Claim 13
The phrase “an areal density of less than approximately 0.5 g/cm2 at ignition” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
The method/functional wording “to have” is unclear. It is unclear whether or not the central region actually has an areal density of less than approximately 0.5 g/cm2 at ignition.
Claim 14
The phrase “the mixture in the central region to have less than approximately 0.5% of total mass, a material having a Z between 6 and 47” allows for a doping mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the “stability of a interface” is increased. It is also unclear how the phrase further limits the method.
The functional wording “to have” in said phrase is unclear. It is unclear whether or not a fusion fuel material actually has less than approximately 0.5% of total mass.
Claim 15
The phrase “the mixture in the central region to have less than approximately 0.25% of total mass, a material having a Z between 6 and 47” allows for a doping mass of zero. Thus, it is unclear how the “stability of a interface” is increased. It is also unclear how the phrase further limits the method.
The method/functional wording “to have” is unclear. It is unclear whether or not a fusion fuel material actually has less than approximately 0.25% of total mass.
Claims 17 and 20
The use of “outer fuel region” when there is no mention of a “inner fuel region” is unclear and confusing. The use of “outer fuel region” implies that there is an “inner fuel region” in the claim. However, these claims lacks mention of an “inner fuel region”. Thus, these claims appear to be incomplete.
The use of “outer shell” when there is no mention of a “inner shell” is unclear and confusing. The use of “outer shell” implies that there is an “inner shell” in the claim. However, these claims lacks mention of an “inner shell”. Thus, these claims appear to be incomplete.
Claim 19
The phrase “an areal density of less than 0.7 g/cm2 ” allows for a fuel areal density of zero. It is unclear how ignition can occur at zero.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
Claim Interpretation
The published specification [0027] states that the claim term “approximately” refers to a given value ranging plus/minus 15%. Thus, “approximately 1 g/cm2 “ (e.g.., claim 1) encompasses a range of 0.85 to 1.15 g/cm2. Similarly, “approximately 1% of total mass” (e.g.., claim 1) encompasses a range of 0.85 to 1.15% of total mass.
The published specification [0017] states that the claim term "Z" refers to the atomic number of an element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9, 11, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montgomery ("Design considerations for indirectly driven double shell capsules", Physics of Plasmas 25, no. 9 (Sept 2018)).
Montgomery teaches an ICF target. The target has a central fuel region with an areal density less than 1.15 g/cm2 (e.g., 0.3 g/cm2). A shell surrounds the central fuel region. The shell comprises a material (e.g., Au-79; W-74) having a Z of 48 or greater. The claim allows for zero dopant in the central fuel region. Particularly note page 2, col. 1; page 4, col. 1; page 4, col. 2; page 12, col. 2; and page 15, col. 2.
Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amendt ("Indirect-drive noncryogenic double-shell ignition targets for the National Ignition Facility: Design and analysis", Physics of Plasmas 9, no. 5 (2002): 2221-2233).
Amendt teaches an ICF target. The target has a central fuel region with an areal density less than 1.15 g/cm2 (e.g., 0.4 g/cm2). The central fuel region is doped with less than 1.15% of total mass with a material (e.g., Ar-18) having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive. A shell surrounds the central fuel region. The shell comprises a material (e.g., Au-79) having a Z of 48 or greater.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
Claims 2-6 and 12-16, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amendt as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in combination with either of:
Wilson ("The effects of pre-mix on burn in ICF capsules", In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 112, no. 2, p. 022015. IOP Publishing, 2008) or
Lackner ("Equilibrium ignition for ICF capsules", In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 318, no. 1, pp. 356-361. American Institute of Physics, 1994) or
Wayte (US 2019/0164652).
Claims 2 and 12
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that an ICF system can be implemented with a central region mixture of various materials, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific ICF system design. For example, each of Wilson, Lackner, and Wayte show that it is well known in the art to have a central region mixture comprise a material having a Z of 48 or greater. Wilson discloses (e.g., pages 1-2) a mixture including Xe-54 (and Ar-18 and Kr-36). Wilson indicates that the mixture relates to fusion burn. Lackner discloses (e.g., page 3) a mixture including Xe-54. Lackner indicates that the addition increases the heat capacity of the fuel. Wayte discloses [0022] a mixture including Cd-48 (and Fe-26). Wayte indicates that the addition optimizes energy generation.
Thus, modification of Amendt to have had the central region mixture comprise a material having a Z of 48 or greater for the advantages thereof and to meet a particular ICF system design, as suggested by each of Wilson, Lackner, and Wayte, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification to Amendt would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15
Amendt discloses an areal density less than 0.5 g/cm2. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that an ICF system can be implemented with a central region mixture of various areal densities and doping percentages, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use in light of the specific ICF system design. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Amendt to have implemented the ICF system with an areal density of less than 0.5 g/cm2 along with a doping less than 0.25% of total mass, to meet a particular ICF system design.
Claims 6 and 16
Wayte discloses [0022] a mixture including both a material having a Z of 48 or greater (Cd-48) and a material having a Z between 6 and 47 inclusive (Fe-26). Wayte indicates that the addition optimizes energy generation. Thus, modification of Amendt to have had the central region mixture include Iron for the advantage thereof and to meet a particular ICF system design, as suggested by Wayte, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 and 7-18 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amendt in combination with either of Wilson or Lackner or Wayte as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in combination with Galloway (US 2017/0213603).
Amendt appears to show a double shell arrangement (e.g., Figure 1). Nevertheless, double shell arrangements are conventional in the ICF art. A double shell arrangements is known to mitigate issues associated with typical single shell designs. For example, Galloway discloses a double shell arrangement. Galloway discloses an outer shell (108), outer fuel region (106), first shell (104), and an inner fuel region (104). Galloway also conventionally uniformly mixes the fusion fuel. Thus, modification of Amendt to have included a double shell arrangement for the advantages thereof and to meet a particular ICF system design, as suggested by Galloway, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 20 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amendt as applied to claims 9 and 19 above, and further in combination with Galloway (US 2017/0213603).
Amendt appears to show a double shell arrangement (e.g., Figure 1). Nevertheless, double shell arrangements are conventional in the ICF art. A double shell arrangements is known to mitigate issues associated with typical single shell designs. For example, Galloway discloses a double shell arrangement. Galloway discloses an outer shell (108), outer fuel region (106), first shell (104), and an inner fuel region (104). Galloway also conventionally uniformly mixes the fusion fuel. Thus, modification of Amendt to have included a double shell arrangement for the advantages thereof and to meet a particular ICF system design, as suggested by Galloway, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. It also improperly refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (e.g., “easily” and “greatly”). An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required.
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is directed to a future result (i.e., end effect). The following Title is suggested: “ICF target".
Additional Comment
The official filing receipt should be reviewed. It may be incorrectly listing applications that are not related to the current application.
The Applied References
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the applied reference(s) have been cited (as examples) 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 by Applicant, including any disclosures that may teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 (VI).
Application Status Information
Application status information may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available only through Private PAIR. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197. For assistance from USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Interview Information
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.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646