SELECTIVE TRANSMUTATION OF REACTIVE MOLECULES IN A REACTOR

§101 §102 §103 §112

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 1–10, 14–16, and 19, the species of Figure 2, and Species (a) in which the air plug/air spark plug is positioned inside the reactor unit in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13, 17-18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/03/2026. 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. Therefore, the computing device must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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 and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 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—the 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 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 for low-energy nuclear fusion which Applicants identify as emanating from “vibrating dipolar molecules.” Claim 1, for example, recites: A reactor unit comprising ... an injector for injecting dipolar molecules … wherein a discharge of the primary circuit generates a high voltage resonant relationship with the secondary circuit via the resonant transformer, causing discharge of the DC capacitor, thereby establishing a high voltage resonant relationship with vibrating dipolar molecules present between reaction electrodes of the second electrode set, wherein the vibrating dipolar molecules are aligned according to a potential difference … The Specification1 further clarifies that said dipolar molecules are water (Spec. at ¶ 62). The claimed transmutation and energy generation occur via nuclear fusion, as explained repeatedly throughout the disclosure (e.g., see abstract: “…using dipolar molecules and inducing nuclear fusion to produce heat”). The Specification repeatedly states that room temperature or even negative temperature nuclear fusion is responsible for the alleged transmutation capabilities of the claimed water molecules: “The internal energy (U) of H2O at an ambient temperature (for example, approximately 20° C.) is conserved,” Spec., ¶ 90 “[W]hile attempting to equalize temperature with the colder OH in the first chamber (28), at >90 K (−182.97° C.), the oxygen undergoes a liquid phase transition, and at >77 K (−195.8 C), the nitrogen undergoes a liquid phase transition,” Spec., ¶ 139 “The warmer ambient air, initially 20° C. (68° F.), equalizes temperature with the cooler OH,” Spec., ¶ 90 “In this case, water existing at 293.15 K (20° C.) by virtue of the sun having heated it from ice is an energy repository,” Spec., ¶ 102 “[T]he temperature of the V1 mode increases by 9 times, such as (9×20° C.=180° C.=453.15 K). However, no energy is transferred from the circuit yet because the alignment is a response to the electrode's potential energy,” Spec., ¶ 105 “Further, the body of the water-spark plug (9) (at approx. 20° C.) is also warmer than the V1 restricted OH at its interface,” Spec., ¶ 138 “Using the calculator, it is calculated how much energy 0.05 grams of H2O at 20° C. has been stored prior to the reaction,” Spec., ¶ 160 “−222.98° C” and “3.69° C,” Spec., ¶ 175 “The ambient pressure tests of the invention demonstrate that even at atmospheric pressure (1 bar), at approx. 20° C. the H2O droplet has been sufficiently saturated with O2 so that alignment of the H2O and its restriction in the freedoms of movement imposed by the reactor electrodes, has still resulted in the production of OH,” Spec., ¶ 200 Therefore, Applicant asserts that the present invention is for production of useful heat & energy (Spec., ¶ 2 and claims 14, 15, 16, and 19 “energy generation”) as well as for the useful medical radioisotope fluorine-18 (Spec., ¶¶ 197–198) from cold nuclear fusion reactions. However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a system for achieving cold fusion yielding a positive net energy output (“the excess energy received is now pure output,” Spec. at ¶ 50) and the medical radioisotope fluorine-18 (Spec., ¶¶ 197–198) without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion.2 For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core.3 Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more. The claimed method when read in light of the Specification, by contrast, operates as significantly lower temperatures than would be needed for nuclear fusion to occur. Among the specific, asserted utilities are the following: to “deliver exceptional amounts of controllable energy in an efficient carbon-free manner using an abundant source,” Spec., ¶ 51 “to power anything from a lawnmower to a power station,” Spec., ¶ 51 “The result of the process is to deliver exceptional amounts of controllable energy in an efficient carbon-free manner using an abundant source,” abstract production of the useful medical radioisotope F-18 (Spec., ¶¶ 197–198); net-energy output from nuclear fusion (Examiner notes that this has never been done before), Spec. at ¶ 50 The Specification describes alleged experimental results (Spec., approx. ¶¶ 150–194, referring to Figs. 29–33), but does not positively demonstrate a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for producing useful electricity required for the above-listed utilities, and further does not demonstrate any evidence for the “potential energy” of water4 alleged to cause the claimed room temperature transmutations. 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 serious experimental details, 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 Dylla,5 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 ITER6 webpage: “The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. 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, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, 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 system7 itself required 322 MJ of energy 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 community.8,9 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 (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a method achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s method relies on “transferring nuclear potential energy from dipolar molecules to a circuit,” Spec., ¶ 7, or, similarly, “molecules are aligned according to the potential difference,” claim 1, for nuclear fusion-induced element transmutation and heat/energy production (”energy generation,” claims 14, 15, 16, and 19). However, as is known by those having 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 University10 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 method for taking advantage of the “potential energy” of water molecules is capable of producing or sustaining a fusion reaction. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition. The device of the instant invention operates at “ambient temperature,” e.g., “20° C,” Spec., ¶ 90. As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s room temperature of 20° C is about 295 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention appears to fit squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion. In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing useful heat/energy production and medical radioisotope production but without the necessity of confining an extremely hot nuclear reaction without melting the reactor walls. Applicant’s cold nuclear fusion allegedly occurs due to the inherent property of the potential energy of water molecules. However, a review of the scientific literature finds no support whatsoever for water molecules exhibiting such extraordinary hidden capabilities. For the present invention, which is directed to a new way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, 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 for generating and maintaining an exothermic cold fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source and/or for producing useful medical radioisotopes via the inherent properties of “potential energy” of water molecules (claims 1 and 14; Spec., ¶ 53 and ¶ 62) 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 laboratory) 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 a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful medical radioisotopes and useful energy as claimed, 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 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. The production of net energy (“the excess energy received is now pure output,” Spec. at ¶ 50, due to the “potential energy” of dipolar water molecules, claims 1 and 14 and Spec., ¶ 53 and ¶ 62) and useful medical radioisotopes (F-18, Spec., ¶¶ 197–198) from a nuclear fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility. Applicant’s invention is disclosed as operating at energy ranges (“ambient temperature,” Spec. at ¶ 90) many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion. The ordinary skilled artisan would find it more likely than not that Applicant’s invention was neither (a) net-energy-producing hot fusion, nor (b) cold fusion because, as detailed above: regarding (a), net-energy-producing hot nuclear fusion has never yet been observed; and regarding (b), cold fusion is considered unworkable by the scientific community. 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 claimed 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 are further 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 are further 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 asserts they have produced an operative device for achieving self-sustained nuclear fusion for useful heat & energy production (“the excess energy received is now pure output,” Spec. at ¶ 50, due to the “potential energy” of dipolar water molecules, Spec., ¶ 53 and ¶ 62) as well as useful medical radioisotope production (F-18, Spec., ¶¶ 197–198) in a low-temperature environment (“ambient temperature, Spec. at ¶ 90). 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 1 and 14) are unusually broad in that they describe an extremely basic experimental setup that, per the accompanying disclosure, results in the world’s first-ever successful cold fusion reactor. Claims 1 and 14 recite the basic components of electrodes, chambers, an injector, and two circuits. (B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science. (C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it. (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 hot nuclear fusion reactors using conventional technology. These reactors operate at extreme temperatures and do not produce net energy. (E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data. (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 cold nuclear fusion. The disclosure simply asserts that the invention operates as alleged due to the inherent properties of a water molecule. (G) The existence of working examples: The Specification describes experiments (Spec., approx. ¶¶ 150–194, referring to Figs. 29–33). However, there is no adequate disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc., that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a nuclear fusion reaction. Nor is there evidence that the provided example has been reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support. (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. Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 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 1–10, 14–16, and 19 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claims 1, 3, and 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships among the second reaction electrode set, first reaction electrode set, the water plug, and the spark/spark gap. The use of the terms “set” in claim 1 indicates multiple items, i.e., an electrode “set” means at least two electrodes. Thus, claim 1 recites at least four electrodes (two sets). However, then claims 3 and 9–10 delimit the electrode “sets” as instead being a water plug and/or a spark plug. Water/spark plugs contain electrodes, but a water/spark plug is not equivalent to an electrode or an electrode “set.” It is entirely unclear how the first “set” of electrodes and the second “set” of electrodes in claim 1 are actually spark plugs/water plugs. What is the relationship between the sets of electrodes and the spark plugs/water plugs? Are they equivalent, as suggested by the claims, or are the electrodes subcomponents of the spark plugs, or something else? Regarding claim 3, the terms "type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(E): The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression … extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Claim 1 recites at lines 7-8 “the first chamber and the third chambers are flow connected via the second chamber.” This limitation appears to be missing some words, as it does not make grammatical sense. Examiner is not aware of the use of “flow connected” as a verb or descriptor for connecting adjacent or non-adjacent rooms/chambers in the manner in which it is used in this limitation. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The relationship between the first chamber and the second reaction electrode set. The limitation recites that the first chamber is “electrically connected” to the “second reaction electrode set,” but it is unclear what this means structurally. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and is thus delimited by its physical structure. Is the first chamber a part of the electrode set (or vice-versa), or is one inside the other, or are they distinct elements that are physically separated but are “electrically connected” by, for example, a wire that connects them together? Additionally, because the electrode is a “set,” i.e., more than one, is the chamber electrically connected to both electrodes? And, if so, are these two separate connections? The relationship between the first chamber and the second chamber. The limitation recites that the first and second chambers are electrically connected, but it is unclear what this means structurally. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and is thus delimited by its physical structure. Is the second chamber a part of the first chamber (or vice-versa), or is one inside the other, or are they distinct elements that are physically separated but are “electrically connected” by, for example, a wire that connects them together? The relationship between the third chamber and the second chamber. The limitation recites that the third and second chambers are electrically connected, but it is unclear what this means structurally. Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and is thus delimited by its physical structure. Is the second chamber a part of the third chamber (or vice-versa), or is one inside the other, or are they distinct elements that are physically separated but are “electrically connected” by, for example, a wire that connects them together? The relationship between the first chamber, the second chamber, and the third chamber. The claim recites that the first and third chambers are “flow connected via the second chamber,” but it is entirely unclear what this means structurally. Are these three chambers physically distinct, or do they overlap with each other in some way? And what does it mean for chambers to be “flow connected”? What is flowing? What type of connection is this? Is it a physical connection or something else? The relationships among the primary circuit, the reactor unit, and the resonant transformer. It is entirely unclear what it means for a circuit to be “inductively coupled” to a reactor unit. The limitation that this coupling is “via a resonant transformer” further confuses the matter. Are the primary circuit and the reactor unit physically distinct, or is one inside the other, or do they overlap, or something else? Where is the transformer arranged relative to the primary circuit and the reactor unit? The relationships among the secondary circuit, the reactor unit, and the first and second reaction electrode sets. What does it mean for a circuit to be connected “via” two electrode “sets”? Presumably two “sets” means at least four electrodes. Are there four electrodes, all physically (or electrically?) connected to some physical portion of the reactor unit and some physical portion of the secondary circuit? Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. In claim 1, it is unclear what the subject of “provide a predefined rectified DC voltage output” is. What is providing this voltage? The secondary circuit, the voltage multiplier rectifier, or the AC source? Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. In claim 1, it is unclear if, in lines 11-12, the limitation “…for receiving an input voltage from an AC source and provide a predefined rectified DC voltage output to a DC capacitor” is a positive recitation. Is the AC source part of the invention, or is this limitation intended as a “capable-of” type limitation, i.e., the rectifier is capable of receiving an input voltage from a theoretical AC source? Similarly, what about the DC voltage output and the DC capacitor? Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. The term “narrow” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” 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. There is no consensus among skilled artisans for the size or dimensions of a passage would be considered “narrow” versus “not narrow” or “broad.” It is unclear if the recited circuits are electrical circuits or cooling circuits. Typically, primary and secondary circuits in nuclear reactors refer to cooling loops. However, claim 1 appears to imply both, that the circuits are for flowing liquid (chambers are “flow connected” to each other) but also might be electrical circuits (“connected … via … electrode sets”). Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. Claim 1 recites “wherein a discharge of the primary circuit generates a high voltage.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of “discharge” in the claim. No such discharge has yet been recited. Is the discharge positively recited, or is it an intended use/desired-result/otherwise downstream effect of the claimed invention? Should this be interpreted as the claimed apparatus is capable of the primary circuit having this discharge? Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. The entirety of lines 14-19 of claim 1 is indefinite. The claimed invention is to an apparatus, but Examiner cannot extract any structural details from lines 14-19. The claim appears to recite that the primary circuit has some kind of discharge, but everything after that are run-on sentences and desired-result-type statements. Additionally, “a high voltage resonant relationship” is twice recited. Are these the same or separate relationships? The term “high” is a relative term—what level of voltage is considered “high”? What does it mean for two features to be in “a high voltage resonant relationship” with each other? The phrase “vibrating dipolar molecules present between reaction electrodes of the second electrode set” makes no sense. What does it mean for molecules to be “between” an electrode “set”? Are there two electrodes, and the molecules are physically in between them? Are the vibrating dipolar molecules positively recited, or is this an effect Applicant hopes the invention will have? The phrase “wherein the vibrating dipolar molecules are aligned according to a potential difference between the reaction electrodes of the second electrode set” is indefinite. First, “the reaction electrodes” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Secondly, Examiner cannot extract a meaning from “wherein the vibrating dipolar molecules are aligned according to a potential difference between the reaction electrodes of the second electrode set.” What does it mean for molecules to be “aligned,” and in particular “aligned” according to a potential difference? Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, immediately above. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation of an electrical insulator, and the claim also recites “preferentially” a ceramic insulator which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation of magnetic steel, and the claim also recites “preferentially” magnetic stainless steel which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The term “preferentially” in claim 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires pressurization above ambient pressure or not. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “water plug” in claim 3 is used by the claim to mean “a set of electrodes,” but the Specification at ¶ 63 discloses that the water spark plug is “Marine type” called “NGK BUHW,” which appears to be a specific type of spark plug that has only 1 electrode.11 The term is indefinite because the Specification states that the spark plug has only 1 electrode, but the claims recite that the spark plug has at least two electrodes (electrode “set”). Additionally, the term “water plug” itself is indefinite. This is not a known term in the art. It is unclear if the claimed “water plug” simply refers to a plug that may be used underwater, or may be used even when wet, or, alternatively, if Applicant intends the modifier “water” to actually refer to a specific design/type of plug. It is further indefinite if the claims refer to the disclosed “spark plug,” or if they simply mean a “water plug” like the type used to plug the drain of a bathtub. While the Specification at ¶ 64 and ¶ 56 suggests an “NGK BUHW” “water plug,” it is still unclear why Applicant doesn’t recite “spark plug” but instead recites “water plug.” Claims 9–10 imply that the “electrode set” or “water plug” is actually a spark plug. It is unclear to Examiner if the claims are reciting a spark plug or a bathtub-style plug (i.e., to stop the flow of something through an orifice). It is further unclear to Examiner if the claimed electrode set/plug is a single electrode or, in fact, at least two electrodes. The term “very high” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very high” 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. There is no consensus among skilled artisans for what voltage resonance would be considered high versus very high versus not-so-high, et cetera. Claim 9 recites “wherein the primary circuit induces a very high voltage resonance on the secondary circuit to create a spark at the electrode set and allowing the DC capacitor to discharge.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of “the electrode set” in the claim. Which electrode set—first or second or something else—is being referred to? Is the discharge positively recited, or is it an intended use/desired-result/otherwise downstream effect of the claimed invention? Should this be interpreted as the claimed apparatus is capable of the capacitor having this discharge? Regarding the spark creation and the “allowing” the DC capacitor to discharge—are these positively recited, or are they intended use/desired-result/otherwise downstream effect/capable-of-type and non-limiting possible outcomes of the claimed invention? It is further unclear what the subject of “allowing” is. The claim uses the verb “induces” but then the verb (?) “allowing,” which would indicate they do not share the same subject. What is allowing the DC capacitor to discharge? Along the same vein, what is implied as preventing the DC capacitor from discharging? Claim 10 recites “an adjustable spark gap switch.” It is unclear what feature(s) is/are “adjustable.” Is the switch itself physically adjustable, e.g., it can be flipped on or off? Or, does this limitation mean that a degree of spark intensity is controllable via the switch, or something else? Claim 14 recites “the operational parameters.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 recites “amount of injection of molecules into the reactor unit.” It is unclear what parameter is being referred to here. Is it an amount of molecules, or an amount of injection? What is an “amount” of molecules? What is an “amount” of injection? How are these measured? Claim 14 recites “the reactor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites “a circuit.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if this circuit is the same as, or different from, the two circuits recited in parent claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15, immediately above. Claim 15 recites “sequentially transferring nuclear potential energy from dipolar molecules to a circuit.” Examiner cannot extract any meaningful limitations from this claim. How is potential energy (understood in the art as stored energy that an object or system possesses) transferred? It is “potential” energy and Examiner does not understand how it is physically accessed and re-located. It is further unclear what is meant by the term “sequentially.” Which items/things/features are moving, and in what “sequential” order? “Dipolar molecules” has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear how these molecules relate to those already recited in parent claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15, immediately above. Claim 16 recites “injection of molecules.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if these molecules are the same as, or different from, those recited in parent claim 1. It is possible that the above indefiniteness rejections are not comprehensive. Examiner asks Applicant’s assistance in identifying any antecedent basis issues or other indefiniteness issues in the claims that Examiner may have missed. Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 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. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative. However, Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of Mills US20220275751A1, who discloses power generation (¶ 2; “a H2O arc plasma cell power generator 700,” ¶ 549), and, e.g., in Figure 10, multiple electrodes (703, 706) in an apparatus with at least three chambers (see the figure) with a surrounding insulator (702), injecting water molecules into a chamber (“fuels can include water,” ¶ 5; “inject a fuel,” ¶ 76), and at least two circuits with transformers and capacitors (¶ 357). 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. Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval. 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 citations to the Specification herein refer to the published application. 2 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited October 27, 2025). 3 Id. 4 “This device can be an energy generation device for sequentially transferring nuclear potential energy from dipolar molecules to a circuit,” Spec., ¶ 7; “dipolar molecules including H2O,” claim 24 5 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86. 6 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do> 7 https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition 8 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>. 9 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>. 10 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>. 11 www.mercurymarine.com/us/en/product/quicksilver-896329833-ngk-buhw-2-spark-plug-1-pack