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. Accordingly, claims 1-31 are pending with claim 25 withdrawn. Claims 1-24 and 26-31 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 03/10/26 have been fully considered but they are directed to the amended claim language and are therefore addressed in the rejections below.
Claim Objections
3. Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claims 1 and 26 are coextensive in scope.
4. The preamble of claim 1 omits a word: inertial confinement fusion reactor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-24 and 26-31 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.
7. Claim 1 first recites “emitting by one or more pairs of nanosecond (ns) laser light sources each comprising a first ns laser light source and a second ns laser light source, electromagnetic radiation” and subsequently recites “propagating, for each pair of ns laser light sources, a first laser beam from the first ns laser light source and a second laser beam from the second laser light source.” The relationship between the recited electromagnetic radiation and the laser beams is unclear. At a minimum, it is unclear whether one or both of the laser light sources emit the electromagnetic radiation. If the electromagnetic radiation and the laser beams are the same, what steps are required between the emitting and the propagating steps to allow for transforming the electromagnetic radiation into the laser beams? Or does claim 1 require that the laser light sources emit both electromagnetic radiation and separately also a laser beam?
8. Claim 1 first recites “emitting, by a plurality of picosecond laser light sources…electromagnetic radiation….to form a focused laser beam…to irradiate into a fuel pellet with a predetermined spot size” as an intended use of the emitting by a plurality of picosecond (ps) laser light sources” followed subsequently by initiating ignition of…using the combination of the first laser beam and the second laser beam” are there two steps of irradiating the fuel pellet? How does the laser beam of the picosecond laser light source relate to the first and second laser beams already introduced? How does the electromagnetic radiation form a focused laser beam?
9. Claim 1 recites “spatially configured with the reactor housing,” which does not adequately delineate the structural arrangement of the laser light sources. Is this supposed to say “within”? Spatially positioned around?
10. The examiner suggests the following claim 1 language to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
A method of using an inertial confinement fusion reactor, the method comprising:
maintaining a vacuum in a reactor housing of the inertial confinement fusion reactor system,
the reactor housing having a diameter and defining an interior region,
the interior region having a reaction region at a center region of the reactor housing, and
a peripheral region surrounding the reaction region;
emitting by one or more pairs of nanosecond laser light sources each comprising a first ns laser light source and a second ns laser light source, a first laser beam from the first ns laser light source and a second laser beam from the second ns laser light source,
wherein each pair of ns laser light sources is coupled to a pair of mirrors such that the first ns laser light source is coupled to a first mirror of the pair of mirrors and the second ns laser light source is coupled to a second mirror diametrically opposed to the first mirror,
wherein each pair of mirrors defines a Fabry-Perot cavity region that extends linearly from the first mirror to the second mirror along the diameter of the reactor housing an intersects with the center of the reactor housing;
propagating, for each pair of ns laser light sources, the first laser beam and the second laser beam to collectively combine to increase in energy intensity from a first intensity to a second intensity for M cycles, where M is greater than 1000 within each Fabry-Perot cavity region,
emitting, by a plurality of picosecond (ps) laser light sources positioned around the reactor housing, a plurality of third laser beams,
focusing each third laser beam through an optical element coupled to each ps laser light source to a predetermined spot size;
initiating ignition of a fusion fuel in a fuel pellet at the reaction region by irradiating the fusion fuel with the combination of the first laser beam and the second laser beam at the second intensity and the focused third laser beams at an energy level sufficient for a fusion reaction.
Applicant should note that amending claim 1 in this manner will necessitate additional amendments to the dependent claims to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. Regarding claims 2 and 3, what is the difference between a “laser device” and a laser light source”? Does claim 2 refer to the electromagnetic radiation already introduced in claim 1?
12. Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what effect the recitation places on the method recited in claim 1. It is noted that a wherein clause in a method claim should “give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.” (MPEP 2111.04). It is unclear what aspect of claim 1 is “characterized by a frequency of 10 Hz.” Is it the irradiating step? If so, the examiner suggests: wherein the irradiating the fusion fuel with the combination of the first laser beam and the second laser beam at the second intensity occurs at a frequency of 10Hz.
13. Regarding claim 5, it is unclear how one would distinguish a laser light source that is configured to emit electromagnetic radiation with a frequency of 10 Hz from a source that is configured to emit at a different frequency because this limitation is directed to a manner of using the light source rather than to the structure of the source itself. The examiner suggests “wherein the emitting the third laser beams occurs at a frequency of 10 Hz.”
14. Claim 7 is not indefinite as written, but if Applicant should choose to amend claim 1 in the manner suggested by the examiner, the second part of the claim (after introducing the injecting step) will need to be amended to recite “wherein the injecting, the emitting the third laser beams, and the irradiating the fusion fuel with the combination of the first laser beam and the second laser beam at the second intensity are synchronized at a frequency of 10 Hz.”
15. Claim 17 is unclear because the recitation “wherein emitting electromagnetic radiation” does not clear refer to the step previously introduced. Additionally, claim 1 requires only a single Fabry-Perot cavity, and claim 17 refers to a plurality. Furthermore, Applicant appears to be attempting to introduce further structure into the claims rather than to further limit a process step. The examiner suggests: wherein the one or more pairs of ns laser light sources comprises more than 100 pairs of ns laser light sources coupled to a corresponding number of pairs of mirrors defining a corresponding number of Fabry-Perot cavity regions.
16. Regarding claim 18, it is unclear what effect the recitation places on the method recited in claim 1. It is noted that a wherein clause in a method claim should “give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.” (MPEP 2111.04). Does claim 18 intend to introduce an additional step of focusing the combined first and second laser beams at the second intensity? Claim 1 now only implies focusing the laser beams from the ps laser light sources.
17. Claim 19 is indefinite because the non-standard unit employed has not been defined in the claim or in the specification.
18. Regarding claims 20-23, claim 1 introduces “initiating ignition of…using he combination of the first laser beam and the second laser beam at an energy level for a fusion reaction.” Claim 1 also introduces “emitting by a plurality of picosecond laser light sources….to form a focused laser beam to irradiate into a fuel pellet with a predetermined spot size.” Claims 20-23 then are directed to the energy level introduced in claim 1 but define it as a pulse power density of the laser beams. It is unclear if this power density is the combined power density of only the combined first and second laser beams at the second intensity or the sum of all of the laser energy from the first, second, and third laser beams.
19. Regarding claim 24, it is unclear what effect the recitation places on the method recited in claim 1. It is noted that a wherein clause in a method claim should “give meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.” (MPEP 2111.04). Claim 24 seems merely to recite an intended use of the laser beams and does not appear to place any additional limitations on the claimed method by reciting an additional step or further limiting how a previously recited method step is performed. Further claim 24, uses the symbol for the relative term “about,” making the recitation 1ns to about 20 ns, indefinite.
20. Regarding claim 26, the claim is generally narrative and indefinite. It includes two “irradiating steps.” The following phrases are examples of unclear language:
cavities that intersect with the reaction region in a hub and spoke pattern (what is the hub and what is the spoke? How can cavities, which are empty spaces, form a hub and spoke structure?)
the first plurality of laser beams being combined at the reaction region (combined with what?)
configured in pairs (no clear structural relationship delineated)
coupled to an optical element such that the second plurality of laser beams are emitted through the optical elements (does not clear denote structure or additional method step)
Applicant should consider amending claim 26 in the manner suggested above for claim 1, taking care to ensure that the scope of claim 26 differs from the scope of claim 1 (see objection in paragraph 3 above).
21. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
22. 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 for several claims due to the numerous clarity issues noted above.
23. The claims are replete with functional limitations that express the intended use of recited structural components or desired results of the claimed apparatus. These clauses do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the applied reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111–2115.
24. The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are directed to the claims as best understood by the examiner, in light of the numerous significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
27. Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17-24, and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekine et al., US 2015/0270019 in view of George et al., US 4,205,278.
28. Regarding claims 1, Sekine discloses a method of using an inertial confinement fusion reactor ([0001] and Fig 1), the method comprising:
maintaining a vacuum ([0028]) in a reactor housing (2), the reactor housing having an interior region and characterized by a diameter (see Fig. 1), the reactor housing having a reaction region (RP1) at a center region of the reactor housing (see Fig. 1) and a peripheral region surrounding the reaction region (see Fig. 1);
emitting, by a pair of nanosecond laser light sources comprising a first laser light source (5a1) and a second laser light source (5a2), wherein the pair of laser light sources is coupled to a pair of mirrors (5a2 and 5b2, [0032]) such that the first laser light source (5a1) is coupled to a first mirror (5a2) of the pair of mirrors and the second ns laser light (5b2) source is coupled to a second mirror (5b2) diametrically opposed to the first mirror (see Fig. 1);
emitting by a plurality of picosecond (ps) laser light sources (6a1, [0047]) positioned around the reactor housing (see Fig. 1), electromagnetic radiation such that each ps laser light source emits electromagnetic radiation through an optical element (6a2, [0036]) coupled to the ps laser light source to form a focused laser beam to irradiated into a fuel pellet with a predetermined spot size in the reaction region ([0035], [0043])
initiating ignition ([0057]) of at least a deuterium and a tritium, a boron, a boron isotope 11, or a proton plus a boron isotope 11 provided in the fuel pellet or a container comprising the fuel pellet injected within the reaction region ([0044]) using the laser beams at an energy level for a fusion reaction ([0052-7]).
Sekine suggests that “three compression laser lights or more may be irradiated…[and] can be added in every two compression laser lights as a pair, which is oppositely incident on the same axis” ([0046]). However, Sekine does not disclose that such compression laser lights are incident on an optical cavity.
George teaches an inertial confinement nuclear fusion method (Abs.; column 20, lines 63-64), comprising:
emitting a first laser beam and a second laser beam (P1, P2) from a laser light source (12) to a pair of mirrors (29/31), the pair of mirrors defining a Fabry-Perot cavity region that extends linearly from the first mirror to the second mirror along the diameter of the reactor housing and intersects with the center of the reactor housing (see Fig. 1 and column 6, lines 6-51) and
propagating the first laser beam and the second laser beam to collectively combine to increase in energy intensity from a first intensity to a second intensity for M cycles, where M is greater than 1,000 cycles within the Fabry-Perot cavity region defined by the pair of mirrors couples to the laser light source column 6, lines 52-64
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the optical cavity amplification technique taught by George in the method of Sekine for the predictable purpose of “reduc[ing] capital outlay of laser amplifier systems by using multiply excited regenerative amplifiers (column 3, lines 49-56).
29. Regarding claims 2-5, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses the ns laser light sources emit at a wavelength of 300-1000 nm ([0033]), the ps laser light sources emit at a wavelength of 800-1000 nm, ranges which overlap or encompass the claimed ranges. While Sekine is silent as to the frequency of its laser light sources, Sekine discloses that their firing rate is an operation parameter (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and [0052-7]) and George teaches that a laser system should be able to irradiate targets at 1-100 Hz (column 4, lines 61-64), making it obvious to employ a laser system having such a frequency in the method of Sekine as modified by George. A skilled artisan would find the selection of suitable laser sources to be a matter of obvious design choice when considering the disclosures of Sekine and George.
30. Regarding claim 6, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses a method further comprising using a fuel pellet dispenser (3; [0029]) coupled to the reactor housing (see Fig. 1). Sekine is silent as to the frequency at which the target supply injects targets into the reactor, but such a rate is determined by the laser firing sequence (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; [0042]), so such a parameter would have been a matter of obvious design choice based on the disclosure of Sekine. George teaches that a laser system should be able to irradiate targets at 1-100 Hz (column 4, lines 61-64) George teaches that a laser system should be able to irradiate targets at 1-100 Hz (column 4, lines 61-64).
31. Regarding claim 7, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 4 obvious. Sekine further discloses injecting, by a fuel pellet dispenser coupled to the reactor housing the fuel pellet (see Fig. 1 and [0029]) and synchronizing the timing of the fuel pellet injection and the irradiation of the laser beams to the fuel pellet ([0042)). Sekine is silent as to the frequency at which the target supply injects targets into the reactor, but such a rate is determined by the laser firing sequence (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 6; [0042]), so such a parameter would have been a matter of obvious design choice based on the disclosure of Sekine. George teaches that a laser system should be able to irradiate targets at 1-100 Hz (column 4, lines 61-64)
32. Regarding claims 9-11, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. George further teaches a reactor having a housing with a diameter of 4 m (column 8, line 65) and suggests a cavity length of ≥100 m (column 3, lines 29-30), “to allow for repetitive pulsing of the amplifier medium, shaping of the laser pulse(s) or activation of the switch,” indicating that such a parameter is a matter of obvious design choice.
33. Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further suggests “two heating laser lights or more may be irradiated, and approximately 100 heating laser lights can be irradiated ([0047]), and discloses that the ps laser lights have a pulse energy of 1-10 kJ ([0035]). While Sekine is silent as to the frequency of its laser light sources, Sekine discloses that their firing rate is an operation parameter (see Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and [0052-7]) and George teaches that a laser system should be able to irradiate targets at 1-100 Hz, making it obvious to employ a laser system having such a frequency in the method of Sekine as modified by George. A skilled artisan would find the selection of suitable laser sources to be a matter of obvious design choice when considering the disclosures of Sekine and George.
34. Regarding claim 14, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses that the ps laser light sources are focused to the predetermined spot size on the fuel pellet to achieve a pulse power density is more than 1x1021 Wcm-2 ([0035]).
35. Regarding claim 17, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further suggests that “three compression laser lights or more may be irradiated…[and] can be added in every two compression laser lights as a pair, which is oppositely incident on the same axis” ([0046]) and George further suggests that a plurality of cavity regions can be employed (column 8, lines 37-38). Accordingly, a method of sing a reactor having more than 100 pairs of laser light sources, pairs of mirrors, and Fabry-Perot cavities is obvious over Sekine in view of George. Such an obvious duplication of parts would have the predictable advantage of multiplying the amount of laser energy deposited on the target by the number of laser light sources/cavities employed.
36. Regarding claim 18, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses a method wherein a pulse from the pair of ns laser light sources is focused into the fuel pellet such that the predetermined spot size is substantially a same size as the fuel pellet ([0033]+[0044]).
37. Regarding claims 20-23, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses a method wherein an energy of laser pulses deposited to a target is more than 1x1016 Wcm-2 on the fuel pellet ([0033], [0035]).
38. Regarding claim 24, Sekine as modified by George makes claim 1 obvious. Sekine further discloses a method wherein a pulse from the ns laser light source is irradiated on the fuel pellet to compress the fuel pellet for a time period of 1ns~20ns ([0053-57]; see also [0033], [0035]).
45. Claims 26-29 appear to repeat recitations present in claims 1-25 and are therefore rejected in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
46. Claims 8, 15, 16, 30, and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights