DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Claims 1-12 are pending. Applicant’s species elections of A3-B2-C1-D2-E2-F2-G3-H5-I1 without traverse in the Reply filed 13 January 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-11. Claims 12 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4, 7-9, and 11 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 4
It is unclear what constitutes the term “high-voltage”. The term is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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 7
The phrase “the walls of the second enclosure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the walls of the third enclosure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8
The phrase “only one of which may be tritium” is unclear in its meaning. For example, it is unclear whether only one isotope from both a selected first isotope and a selected second isotope can be tritium. That is, both selected isotopes can’t be tritium.
Claim 9
It is unclear how a circuit can comprise the entire first enclosure.
Claim 11
The phrase “the walls of the second enclosure” lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
Applicant should also review the phrase “said wall” in withdrawn claim 12 with regard to proper antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim 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.
It is unclear how the device generates enough heat capable of heating a chemical product which would allow for a chemical reaction. The disclosure does not enable or explain, in a manner sufficiently clear to one skilled in the art, how to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with the claim.
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, 4, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuller ("Long-lifetime high-yield neutron generators using the D–D reaction", In Proc. Int. Topical Meeting Nuclear Research Applications and Utilization of Accelerators (International Atomic Energy Agency) 2009).
Claims 1, 4, and 8
Fuller teaches an ion accelerator for accelerating ions of a first isotope (deuterium) toward a first target having a second isotope (deuterium) to cause a nuclear fusion reaction that generates neutrons. The neutrons react with a second target.
Claims 6
Fuller’s generated neutrons can be used for oil well logging, explosive detection, nuclear materials, chemical industry, and semiconductor industry, i.e., arrangements in which the third enclosure is positioned around the second enclosure.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dent ("High Voltage Deuterium Ion Accelerator", 2014).
The skilled artisan knows that there are many methods that can be used to provide ionization. Dent shows that it is well known in the art to employ a laser in an ionization system. Modification of Fuller to have employed a laser to ionize the deuterium, as suggested by Dent, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Danon (A Novel Compact Pyroelectric X-Ray and Neutron Source, No. DOE/ID/14596, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2007).
Danon shows that it is well known in the art to employ X-ray emission in an ionization system. Modification of Fuller to have employed X-ray emission to ionize the deuterium, as suggested by Danon, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wharton ("X‐ray measurements of a thermo scientific P385 DD neutron generator", In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1336, no. 1, pp. 538-540, American Institute of Physics, 2011).
Wharton shows that it is well known in the art to employ a lead (Pb) material to absorb gamma rays. Modification of Fuller to have employed lead for shielding, as suggested by Wharton, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cihlar ("Preliminary Neutronics Study of an Accelerator-Driven Molten Spallation Target–Molten Lithium Source of Tritium", Fusion Science and Technology 79, no. 2 (2023): 104-116).
As discussed above, Fuller shows that it is well known in the art to accelerate deuterium ions into a deuterium gas target to cause a nuclear fusion reaction that generates neutrons. It is well known in the art employ generated neutrons to produce a desired isotope. For example, Cihlar shows that it is well known in the art to employ generated neutrons to hit a target of lithium-6 to produce tritium. Modification of Fuller to have employed the generated neutrons to produce a desired isotope (e.g., tritium), as suggested by Cihlar, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller as applied to claim 1 above.
Fuller teaches cooling. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a system for carrying out nuclear reactions can be implemented with various cooling arrangements, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain cooling arrangements in light of the specific system design. Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Fuller to have implemented a cooling arrangement that optimizes cooling. Thus, modification of Fuller to have employed a cooling arrangement that includes a cooling circuit at least partly in the walls of the second and third enclosures, to meet a particular system design optimization, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Additionally, Fuller indicates that the generated neutrons and heat can be employed for many uses, e.g., oil well logging, explosive detection, nuclear materials, chemical industry, semiconductor industry, etc. Thus, modification of Fuller to have employed the generated neutrons and heat for use in a chemical reaction would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) must be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The following recited features are not shown:
X-ray emission system (claim 3).
a wall comprising a lead material (claim 5).
a cooling circuit in second and third enclosure walls (claim 7).
deuterium circulating in circuit comprising the first enclosure (claim 9).
chemical product circulates in second enclosure walls and third enclosure walls (claim 11).
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. 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.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences. Also, an Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. The recited invention has been amended. Thus, no energy generation is recited. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is too generic for the elected invention. The following Title is suggested: “System That Accelerates Hydrogen Ions Into A Target Of Hydrogen Isotopes To Produce Nuclear Fusion Generated Neutrons For Reacting With Another Target”.
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).
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