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 .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-21 are pending with claims 10-21 withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, in view of the amended claim language new rejections are presented below. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the indefiniteness rejections of the “configured to” language and the “corona-forming layer” are addressed in the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-9 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.
5. Regarding claim 1, is it unclear what structure is encompassed by the limitation “ an asymmetric laser driver configured to deliver energy asymmetrically to the target, the asymmetric laser drive comprising at least one laser source configured to illuminate the target with two substantially opposed beams in a first pulse set followed by a second pulse set.” First, it is unclear what the two terms “laser driver” and “laser source” structurally encompass. What, in addition to the “at least one laser source” must a “laser driver” possess? Secondly, what structure must a “laser driver” possess to make it “configured to”, i.e., specially designed for “deliver[ing] energy asymmetrically”? Further, how is “at least one laser source” “configured to,” i.e., specially designed for “illuminat[ing] the target with two substantially opposed beams? How would one differentiate a laser source that is intended to illuminate a target with a single laser beam from one that is configured to perform as claimed? Is there some structural different in the source itself or is the difference in the manner in which the laser source is employed? How is a “laser source” specially designed to deliver a first pulse set and a second pulse set. Isn’t any laser source capable of such an action? What structure makes the claimed “laser source” “configured to” perform this limitation. Finally, what does the term “asymmetric” mean in the context of the claim? Does it mean that the opposed beams have different wavelengths? Does it mean that the pulse sets have different durations? Are the beams somehow spatially asymmetric? With respect to what? A plane, an axis? If this is the case, how could spatially asymmetric beams also be “opposed”?
Applicant is reminded:
The instant specification states ([0028]): A highly asymmetric laser drive can include two directly opposing beams. A highly asymmetric laser drive can include two directly opposing beams, or any other configuration that might not be expected to result in a symmetric implosion without the benefit of embodiments described herein.
The disclosed invention employs two laser sources 102 a and 102 b (see Fig. 1A and [0023]).
The examiner further notes that multiple laser sources, while intended to provide symmetric laser pulses to a target, will be capable of asymmetric laser pulses. For example Rose (cited on the attached PTO-892) states: “There is a possibility that the effects of unequal focal lengths in the upper and lower laser beam sources 6 may give an asymmetric illumination and intensity…”
6. Additionally, the recitation “a corona-forming layer” is also indefinite because the structure is expressed in terms of a function of the layer. The claim does not recite the particular structure or materials that achieve the function, so one would be unable to ascertain the scope of the claim element. The recitation fails “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” (See MPEP 2173.05(g)). The examiner notes that ‘corona-forming layer” does not appear to be a standard term ubiquitous in the art of inertial confinement fusion, such that a skilled artisan would readily recognize its scope. Rather, this term appears to have been coined in the instant disclosure and is nebulously defined, so one cannot even use the specification to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim element. Applicants arguments regarding the definition of this term do not indicate how a skilled artisan would be able to ascertain its metes and bounds, merely concluding that “those skilled in the art would nonetheless recognize that this phrase denotes a particular layer of a target for ICF.” But how would one recognize this? What “particular layer” of an ICF target does this phrase encompass?
7. Claim 4 is indefinite for the same reasons claim 1 is indefinite. There is no indication in the claims or the disclosure as to the particular structure of the claimed “laser drive” that provides the recited functions.
8. Claims 5, 7, and 8 are directed solely to a function or result achieved by the invention and not to a particular structural limitation of the claimed system, so the claim language fails “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” (See MPEP 2173.05(g)). Moreover, the appear to be directed to a manner in which the system of claim 4 is used rather than to a particular structure of the claimed system. Thus, one would be unable to ascertain the metes and bounds of claims 4 and 5, because one cannot determine what structure one must provide to the system of claim 4 to achieve the results recited.
9. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. For applicant's benefit, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al., US 2020/0327998 (cited on the PTO-892 dated 11/14/25 provided with the previous office action) in view of Nuckolls, et al., US4,687,618.
14. Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Peterson discloses a system for inertial confinement fusion ([0031]: Fig. 3, 300), comprising: a hohlraum (120) enclosing a target (110) comprising a fusion fuel layer and an ablator layer (see Fig. 3 and [0049]); and an asymmetric laser driver (332+334) configured to deliver energy asymmetrically to the target ([0040], [0041]), the asymmetric laser driver comprising at least one laser source (implicit because laser beams must be generated by a laser source) configured to illuminate the target with two substantially opposed beams each comprising a plurality of beams overlapped in a solid angle that is less than 50% of 4π (see Fig. 3) in a first pulse set followed by a second pulse set ([0039]) to result in ignition of the fusion fuel layer (intended use recitation; see [0041]).
Peterson des not disclose that its target has a corona-forming layer. Nuckolls teaches a target for inertial confinement fusion (see Fig. 1A and column 1, lines 10-14) comprising an outermost layer 12 that is a corona-forming layer (see column 4, lines 4-6).
Additionally, Perkins does not explicitly disclose that its laser source is intended to provide laser beams in a first pulse set followed by a second pulse set. Nuckolls teaches providing a first pulse set followed by a second pulse set to its target having a corona-forming outermost layer (see Fig. 1B and column 1, lines 1-22).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the corona-forming layer taught by Nuckolls to the target of Peterson for the predictable purpose of “ensuring supersonic electron transport through the [corona] and enhancing the subsequent implosion symmetry” (column 4, lines 11-16).
15. Regarding claims 4, 5, 7, and 8, Peterson as modified by Nuckolls makes claim 1 obvious. Peterson further discloses a system wherein the asymmetric laser driver is configured to illuminate with the first pulse set the corona-forming layer to form an expanded corona (see [0040] of Peterson and column 4, lines 11-16 of Nuckolls) and energize via the second pulse set the expanded corona, the second pulse set comprising a plurality of second pulses (see Fig. 4B and [0040-44]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the corona-forming layer taught by Nuckolls to the target of Peterson for the reasons stated above.
16. Regarding claims 5, 7, and 8, Peterson in view of Nuckolls makes obvious the system of claim 4.
Because Peterson in view of Nuckolls possesses all of the structural limitations of claim 4, it is the examiner’s position that the manner of use and the results achieved that are recited in claims 5, 7, and 8 are present in the combination of Peterson with Nuckolls. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
17. Additionally regarding the limitations of 5, 7, and 8, Nuckolls appears to teach them (see column 4, lines 1-22 and Fig. 1B):
Claim 5: wherein energizing the expanded corona by the second pulse set includes illuminating the expanded corona to produce a substantially uniform pressure profile on the ablator layer and the fusion fuel layer (intended use recitation: “enhancing the subsequent implosion symmetry”)
Claims 7 and 8 wherein the first pulse set is to deliver energy absorbed uniformly between a radius, r2, and a radius, r3, from a center of the target, and wherein r2/r3 is in a range of 0.5 to 0.9 and wherein the second pulse set is to deliver energy uniformly between a radius, r2, and a radius, r3, from a center of the target, and wherein r2/r3 is in a range of 0.5 to 0.7 (“laser pulses of different wavelengths are used to implode the core…the longest wavelength is used first because…it is absorbed at the lowest plasma density, and this at the greatest distance from the core”).
18. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al., US 2020/0327998 in view of Nuckolls (as applied to claims 1 and 2 above) in further view of Campbell et al., US2014/0044226.
19. Regarding claim 3, Peterson as modified by Nuckolls makes claims 1 and 2 obvious. Peterson is silent as to the absolute value of the solid angle of its laser beams (see Fig. 4). Campbell teaches an inertial confinement fusion system (see Fig. 4 and [0003]), wherein a solid angle of overlapping laser beams is “significantly less than 0.5 steradians” ([0106]), where 0.5 steradians = 3.98% of 4π.1 Thus, Campbell teaches a range that encompasses the claimed range and suggests that the solid angle of the irradiation beam in an ICF should be as small as possible, making the claim limitation obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
20. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al., US 2020/0327998 in view of Nuckolls (as applied to claim 5 above) in further view of Hunter, Jr. et al., US2021/0350943.
21. Regarding claim 9, Peterson as modified by Nuckolls makes claim 5 obvious. Peterson and Nuckolls are silent as to a gradient in their targets’ outer layers. Hunter teaches a target for inertial confinement fusion ([0008]), wherein a corona-forming outer region (110; see [0032] “the propellant region 110 becomes ionized and optically thin to x-ray radiation”) has a gradation in atomic number or density ([0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to apply the outer layer gradient taught by Hunter to the target of Peterson as modified by Nuckolls for the predictable purpose of tailoring the pressure profile of the target ([0009]).
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.
Additional References
The attached Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892) cites additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Finality
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 https://www.mathsisfun.com/geometry/steradian.html