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 claims 5-6 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/29/2025.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
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 5–6 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—there 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, the 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 self-sustaining nuclear fusion.
Claim 5 recites
[M]agnetic coils of a nuclear fusion reactor…
Claim 6 recites
Magnetic field coils of a nuclear fusion reactor…
Even a cursory review of the Specification1 reveals that the claimed magnetic coils of a nuclear fusion reactor are “to achieve and maintain net electricity,” abstract [emphasis added by Examiner].
The electricity as disclosed is produced via net-energy producing fusion where more power is output than was input2.
In the abstract and the brief summary of the Specification (abstract and Spec. at ¶ 13), Applicant acknowledges the inadequacy of previous attempts at achieving said net-energy/electricity and commercially viable fusion reactors have failed, and thus the claimed invention uses a “new” nuclear fusion technology:
“This fusion reactor has a lower temperature and lower magnetic field than many modern fusion reactors but uses new technology to produce more fusion reactions and heat,” abstract
“This invention explores a new method,” abstract
“The invention of this patent pertains to a new type of nuclear fusion reactor,” ¶ 13
“There exists a ‘sweet spot’ of fuel density between approximately between 1 kg/m3 and 10 kg/m3 which this patent claims since no other scientists have developed this hypothesis,” ¶ 64
“Another downside to extremely high temperatures is that they cannot be maintained because it will melt all of its surroundings. Most fusion reactors operate at extremely high temperatures for a few seconds. This is not promising for a net electricity energy system,” ¶ 70
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a reactor for producing net-energy nuclear fusion: “to achieve and maintain net electricity,” abstract. Applicant’s specific asserted utility is therefore a reactor generating useful electricity from the excess heat and energy emanating from the world’s first-ever achievement of breakeven nuclear fusion for practical purposes: “to achieve and maintain net electricity,” abstract.
The Specification does not provide any experimental evidence of a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy 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 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 Dylla3, 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 ITER4 webpage:
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JETZXc. 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 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 system5 itself required 322 MJ of energy6 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 community6,7.
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 to be in possession of a nuclear fusion reactor that operates so efficiently as to be suitable for net-positive output energy (abstract), would be considered highly questionable to a person of 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 University8 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 fusion method is capable of sustaining a fusion reaction to achieve breakeven. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition.
For the present invention, which is directed to a new way of attempting self-sustaining nuclear fusion at odds with conventional best practices (“… new method … uses new technology,” abstract), 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—a type of nuclear fusion reactor in its early days of research—for generating and maintaining a 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 publications) 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 fusion ignition, i.e., the causing and the capability to generate net electricity as alleged, 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 5-6 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. Applicant alleges the production of useful electricity from a self-sustaining—i.e., ignition or breakeven—nuclear fusion reactor. As detailed above, no laboratory on Earth has yet achieved nuclear fusion ignition for practical purposes.
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 alleged 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 5-6 are rejected under 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 5-6 are rejected under 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 5-6 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.
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 admits that previous, well-funded and decades-long attempts at producing viable nuclear fusion reactors have been unsuccessful (abstract and ¶¶ 69-70). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative reactor for achieving nuclear fusion for useful energy production, see the abstract.
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 claims (e.g., see claims 5-6) are very broad: a symmetric arrangement of 14 magnetic coils somehow produces the specified utility of “net electricity,” abstract. The disclosure does not supply adequate guidance for how the claimed result follows from the recited apparatus.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, is nuclear fusion.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses thermonuclear fusion reactors that require more input energy than they produce.
(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 that do not produce net positive energy.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Thermonuclear fusion devices have failed to make serious advances towards practical applications after more than half a century of research. The skilled artisan would not predict any major advances or breakthroughs in the near future.
(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 nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply suggests a “sweet spot of fuel density … no other scientists have developed” that achieves the desired result, see Spec. at ¶ 64.
(G) The existence of working examples: No working example or detailed experimental setup is 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The recitations of “means” in claim 6 are interpreted under 112(f).
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 5–6 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the arrangement" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the center". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the fusion chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a cube" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this is a distinct cube from the cube introduced in line 4.
Regarding claim 5, the phrases "like" render the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “like” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “like” 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, there is no consensus among ordinary skilled artisans for what might be reasonably considered “like” the faces/points of a cube.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “…even though the fusion chamber may not be physically a cube” are not proper claim limitations. Examiner suggests removing these limitations. See MPEP 2114(II): “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” In this case, the limitations in question appear to acknowledge a hypothetical, which does not fall under reciting “what a device is.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "6 of the magnetic coils" and “8 of the magnetic coils.” While the preamble recites 14 coils, it is unclear if the recited 6 must be distinct from the recited 8. In other words, it is unclear if there can be overlap between the recited 6 and the recited 8.
Claim 5 recites “like 8 points of a cube.” It is unclear what is meant by “points.” Any location on a cube could be a “point.” It is unclear if Applicant intends to refer to “corners” of a cube.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the nuclear fusion core". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites that the magnetic field coils alternate their magnetic field strength. It is unclear if this means alternate as in “go back and forth,” i.e., between two distinct strengths, or if this means alternate simply as in “change.” Additionally, since “coils” is plural, are two coils alternating, i.e., going back and forth with their strengths with each other? Are all coils alternating/changing strength, or merely some of them? If the back-and-forth interpretation is intended, what is a first coil going back-and-forth with? Another coil? Or another value, i.e., a single coil “alternates” with itself?
Claim 6 recites that the coils “continually change their distance.” Examiner interprets this as the coils are in constant movement—if this is incorrect, please clarify or amend claim language. Are all coils in constant movement? Or only some of them? If a coil moves in a circle around the core, its “distance with respect to (wrt) the nuclear fusion core” remains unchanged, even while its orientation wrt the core changes—does Applicant mean “orientation,” or does Applicant mean “distance”? If the latter, does Applicant mean linear distance, i.e., a radius originating from the center of the core or something else?
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wessel (US 2022/0359093).
Regarding claim 5, Wessel discloses (see Fig. 4A) the arrangement of magnetic field coils (402a,b,c) of a nuclear fusion reactor such that there are 14 separate magnetic field coils (“In the disclosed embodiment of FIGS. 4A-4E, the disclosed rhombicosidodecahedron arrangement of magnetic coils may be comprised of 20 triangular coils 402a, 30 quadrilateral (square) coils 402b, and 12 pentagonal coils 402c, for a total of 62 magnet coils,” ¶ 57) wherein: 6 of the magnetic field coils are arranged equidistant from the center of the fusion chamber like 6 faces of a cube even though the fusion chamber may not be physically a cube (if you superimpose an imaginary cube onto the shape in Fig. 4A, there are at least 6 coils among all the coils 402a,b,c that are equidistant from a common center and that are located where the faces of the cube would lie), and 8 of the magnetic field coils are arranged equidistant from the center of the fusion chamber like 8 points of a cube even though the fusion chamber may not be physically a cube (if you superimpose an imaginary cube onto the shape in Fig. 4A, there are at least 8 coils [distinct from the above 6] among all the coils 402a,b,c that are equidistant from a common center and that are located where the faces of the cube would lie).
Regarding claim 6, Wessel discloses (see Figs. 4A and 4C) magnetic field coils of a nuclear fusion reactor wherein: the magnetic field coils continually change their distance with respect to the nuclear fusion core, or the magnetic field coils (402a,b,c) alternate their magnetic field strength (as shown in Fig. 4C and as described in ¶¶ 59–60, the magnetic field alternates between stronger intensity regions 412 and lower intensity regions 414; also shown as high intensity regions 415 and low intensity regions 415a in Fig. 4D) by electric or other means, or the magnetic field coils continually change their distance with respect to the nuclear fusion core and the magnetic fields alternate their magnetic field strength by electric or other means.
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 references to the “Specification” or “Spec” herein are directed towards the PGPub US 2024/0047086.
2 “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>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
3 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
4 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
5 Achieving Fusion Ignition. <lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition>. Last accessed October 23, 2025.
6 “However, although the fusion reactions produced more than 3 MJ of energy — more than was delivered to the target — NIF’s lasers consumed 322 MJ of energy in the process.” Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598.
7 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article.
8 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University webpage. <hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>. Last accessed March 21, 2026.