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 Species A (FIGS. 3, 7: fusion fuel droplets) in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species B (FIGS. 4, 8: liquid metal droplets filled with fusion fuel) (note recitation of “liquid metal droplets filled with fusion fuel” in claim 2, line 9), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are pending in the application with claim 2 withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Analysis – 35 USC § 101
As set forth in MPEP 2107, examination requires a review of the claims and the supporting written description to determine if the application has asserted for the claimed invention any specific and substantial utility that is credible. If no assertion of a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the claimed invention is made by Applicant, and the claimed invention does not have a readily apparent, well-established utility, the claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the grounds that the invention as claimed lacks utility.
To satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, an invention must provide a well-defined and particular benefit to the public and define a “real world” use of the invention as disclosed in its current form. Utilities that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use are not substantial utilities. A prima facie showing of no credible, specific, and substantial utility must establish that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider specific and substantial any utility or would not consider credible any specific and substantial utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements: (i) an explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the utility is not both specific and substantial nor well-established or that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible; (ii) support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and (iii) an evaluation of all relevant evidence of record including the closest prior art.
The Present Invention and the Asserted Utility
Applicant’s invention is directed towards “[w]hispering gallery mode fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” (preamble of claim 1). Applicant’s asserted utility of the claimed invention is therefore fusion for generating power and propulsion.
Background on Fusion and Power Generation
Nuclear fusion is a reaction in which two or more light nuclei are combined, resulting in the release of a large amount of energy1. These reactions are only known to occur at extremely high temperatures (such as temperatures on the order of 107 K) and at extremely high pressures (such as those present on the sun)2. Achieving “ignition” is different from merely producing a fusion reaction. “Ignition” refers to a condition in which a sufficient amount of fuel is compressed sufficiently and heated sufficiently such that a self-sustaining fusion reaction can occur in which energy produced by fusion reactions continues to heat the fuel. This allows for significant energy to be produced before expansion of the fuel and the resultant cooling terminates the fusion reaction. Achieving ignition is believed to be the first step towards power generation using fusion reactions3.
Systems for generating fusion reactions are incredibly complex and the successes (or failures) of fusion systems depend on specific and precise parameters, with even slight changes to any of the numerous design aspects having the potential to significantly modify the outcomes of the system4. There are various approaches utilized by these systems for creating (or attempting to create) the extreme conditions required for fusion reactions and, possibly, ignition. One approach is inertial confinement fusion (ICF) in which short, powerful laser pulses are used to heat and compress a target of fusion fuel to a sufficiently hot and dense state having enough energy to initiate fusion reactions4. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest and most powerful ICF system built to date and uses the world’s highest-energy laser to deliver energy from 192 laser beams onto a deuterium-tritium (DT) target4. Another approach is magnetic confinement fusion, in which magnetic fields are used to confine plasma 5. The Joint European Torus (JET) is one of the world’s largest and most powerful fusion devices and is an example of a magnetic confinement system known as a tokamak. The JET system, approximately 15 m in diameter and approximately 12 m tall, uses poloidal field coils and 32 toroidal field coils to generate powerful magnetic fields to confine a DT plasma5.
Successful fusion ignition and power generation using fusion reactions has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”, driving multi-decade long endeavors by the international fusion community to reach this goal4. The first ever demonstration of ignition was made in December 2022, when NIF reportedly produced 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. The results of the experiment required decades of experimentation and research and have been hailed as “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” and a “fusion breakthrough”4. However, the laser system 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 was far from a demonstration of practical energy production – as stated by experts in the fusion community6,7,8,9. To date, no magnetic confinement fusion systems have achieved ignition10.
Applicant’s Invention in view of the Current State of the Art
As discussed above, Applicant’s invention is directed towards a “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” (claim 1). However, the disclosure lacks objective support for the alleged results and describes the necessary parameters and design aspects in an extremely broad manner. The disclosure is replete with statements of desired or intended results of the claimed “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” and does not provide any evidence to support the conclusion that the present invention is capable of causing a fusion reaction, let alone fusion reactions for practical power production. The only successful fusion experiment to achieve ignition utilized an inertial confinement fusion system and operated at an overall net energy loss, despite employing the world’s largest and highest-energy laser system, advanced optical systems, and specific laser pulse energies, timings, and shapes and target sizes, shapes, and compositions4. Yet, no such structures or parameters are disclosed or claimed in the present application. The claims and disclosure fail to identify any specific combination(s) of parameters and designs needed to actually achieve fusion.
Discussion
According to MPEP 2107, there is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an Applicant to support an asserted utility, therapeutic or otherwise. Rather, the character and amount of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed (Ex parte Ferguson, 117 USPQ 229 (Bd. App. 1957)), and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs. Evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true. Based on the above analysis, Examiner concludes that it is more likely than not that a person skilled in the art would not consider the utility asserted by Applicant for the claimed invention to be a specific and substantial utility that is credible. As has been established above, the present invention is directed towards a mechanism for causing fusion for practical applications that contradicts the prevailing view of the mainstream scientific community. Further, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the alleged fusion by the present invention. Consequently, the evidence that must be provided to establish a credible, specific, and substantial utility for the present invention must be sufficiently strong to overcome the weight of the mountain of experimental evidence that underpins the conclusion of the scientific community. The present disclosure would therefore not lead a skilled artisan to conclude fusion occurs.
Analysis – Specification and 35 USC § 112(a)
As set forth in MPEP 2163, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Additionally, as set forth in MPEP 2164, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention. The amount of guidance or direction necessary to enable an invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art, as well as to the predictability of the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833,839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
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).
As discussed above, there is no evidence that the present invention is capable of achieving fusion and the specification fails to describe distinguishing and identifying characteristics sufficient to show that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Based on the evidence regarding the aforementioned Wands factors, the specification at the time the application was filed would not have taught one skilled in the art how to achieve the disclosed asserted utility of fusion for power and propulsion applications:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards “[w]hispering gallery mode fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” (claim 1). As discussed above and further below, the claims do not appear to recite any actual structure of the claimed “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion”. Rather, the claims are entirely directed towards functional language and/or desired results (e.g., “magnetic fields generated by whispering gallery mode radiation”, “secondary radiations generated by whispering gallery mode radiation”, “compressed fusion fuel generated by magnetic fields generated by whispering gallery mode radiation and secondary radiations generated by whispering gallery mode radiation”, “wakefield fast ignition radiation focused by magnetic fields generated by whispering gallery mode radiation and secondary radiations generated by whispering gallery mode radiation”, etc.). The “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” is essentially a black box with no description of the internals thereof. The claims do not appear to recite any actual structure which would enable the “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” to perform all of the recited features. Even slight changes to any of the numerous design aspects of a fusion system can significantly modify the outcomes of the system4. Yet, the claims merely recite the functions and/or desired results of “magnetic fields”, “secondary radiations”, etc. without reciting any actual structure, materials, or steps for generating and/or maintaining the claimed “fields”, “radiation”, etc. and further fail to recite the specific design aspects of the claimed “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” necessary to achieve the alleged result of fusion reactions. MPEP 2164.08.
(B)-(D) The nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, and the level of one of ordinary skill: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, is directed towards fusion for practical applications. The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands the concepts of nuclear fusion and nuclear reactions and would be capable of delving into the scientific literature on the topics and ascertaining how it could be applied to the present invention. As discussed above, fusion systems are notoriously fickle in implementation and operation. Minute adjustment of a single structural parameter can result in complete inoperability. The effects disclosed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and a skilled artisan would be unable to use the available scientific literature to successfully cause fusion using the claimed “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” as fusion in this manner has not yet been achieved. MPEP 2164.05(a).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The results of fusion experiments are predictably unpredictable. As discussed above, the most successful fusion experiment to date was an ICF system and the first ever demonstration of ignition, despite over half a century of research. Small variations in a component or parameter of the fusion system can dictate the performance and outcomes of the system. Applicant has therefore set forth the desired result of practical fusion using mechanisms which have been predictably unable to generate ignition, without identifying how one could achieve these results. To Examiner’s knowledge, there exists no guide readily available listing the structures, materials, or steps necessary for constructing a “[w]hispering gallery mode fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” that can achieve fusion. MPEP 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventors: The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970). As discussed above, only a single fusion system (NIF) has been successful at achieving ignition, suggesting that a complete disclosure of the structure, materials, and steps for causing fusion by a “[w]hispering gallery mode fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” are required to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the disclosed invention. Further, as discussed above, fusion systems are complex systems and the successes (or failures) of these systems depend on specific design parameters. However, there is no disclosure of the combination of these specific parameters necessary for achieving fusion using Applicant’s invention. MPEP 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: As discussed above, examples are defined as and explained by theoretical possibilities and are not reliably-reproducible working examples. MPEP 2164.02.
(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 infinite, as the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention, and the provided theoretical guidance is insufficient to enable one to understand the underlying sequence of phenomena required to attempt such an endeavor. MPEP 2164.06.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and the enablement requirement. Based on the above analysis, the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the invention and fails to adequately teach how to make and/or use the invention.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility for the reasons set forth above. In the above analysis, Examiner has provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would reasonably doubt this asserted utility of the claimed invention. “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)).
Claim 3 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is not directed towards either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. A process is an invention that is claimed as an act or step, or a series of acts or steps. Machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter define physical or tangible “things” or “products”. Specifically, a machine is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. A manufacture is a tangible article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means. A composition of matter is a combination of two or more substances and includes all composite articles. Claim 3, as currently presented and as best understood by Examiner (see below), is directed towards “radiation”. Radiation is not a process and further does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, claim 3 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Based on the above analysis, the claims contain 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 or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain 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, as discussed above. In view of the above presented Wands factors, it is Examiner’s position that undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a specific and substantial utility as discussed above. 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(a) as discussed further below. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted, “[o]bviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the specification cannot enable one to use it”. Because the invention as claimed does not have a specific and substantial utility that is credible, as discussed above, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 and 3 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 1 recites in the preamble “[w]hispering gallery mode fusion power plant and rocket propulsion”. The scope of the claimed invention is unclear. The specification establishes: “The invention can be used in two ways: if the burning and expanding fusion fuel is sent into outer space, it generates thrust for rockets, if it is sent to a heat exchanger, then electricity is produced by interposing a steam turbine in power plants” ([0011]). It is therefore unclear if the claims are directed towards a power plant, propulsion, both, or some other combination. Additionally, the term “propulsion” describes the generation of force11. This is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter) discussed above. See MPEP 2163.03. Thus, if the claim is intended to be directed towards “propulsion”, the claim would further be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. For purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting claim 1 as intending to be directed towards an apparatus (e.g., a fusion system).
Claim 1 is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. As best understood by Examiner (see above), claim 1 is directed towards an apparatus. The structure which goes to make up the apparatus must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. However, the claim does not appear to recite any actual structure. Rather, as discussed above, the claim appears to be entirely directed towards functional language and/or intended or desired results. For example, claim 1 recites the “fusion power plant and rocket propulsion” comprises “magnetic fields” and “secondary radiations” which are “generated by whispering gallery mode radiation”. The “magnetic fields” and the “secondary radiations” would therefore appear to be an intended or desired result of the “whispering gallery mode radiation”. However, there is no recitation of any structure capable of generating “whispering gallery mode radiation”, let alone any structure capable of generating “magnetic fields” (e.g., coils) or “secondary radiations”. The claim then recites further intended or desired results based on the intended or desired result of generating the “magnetic fields”: features (“compressed fusion fuel”, “fusion fuel droplets”, “magnetic valves”, “magnetic nozzle”) which are generated or formed by the “magnetic field” and features (“wakefield fast ignition radiation”) which are “focused” by the “magnetic fields”.
Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is unclear the relationship between the “compressed fusion fuel” and the “fusion fuel droplets”.
The term “fast” in claims 1 and 3 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claims, 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 3 recites “characterized in that it can be particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation, or both”. It is unclear the relationship between the “particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation, or both” and the previously recited radiations in parent claim 1. It is further unclear what “it” is intending to refer to in the claim.
Note on Claim Interpretation
The following prior art rejections represent Examiner’s best interpretation of the claims in view of the numerous drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections discussed above. Examiner has made a diligent attempt to extract the examinable elements from the claims and apply art to them. It should be understood that clarification of the application (via claim amendments) may necessitate future prior art rejections thereof.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 3, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Strongly magnetized plasma produced by interaction of nanosecond kJ-class laser with snail targets” (“Pisarczyk”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Pisarczyk (newly cited) (see FIG. 1) discloses a fusion system comprising fusion fuel, capable of circulating radiation in a whispering gallery mode and generating magnetic fields (Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP 2159. See MPEP 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP 706.07(e), 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/979,709 and claim 1-3 of copending Application No. 19/358,474 (reference applications). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are substantially similar to the limitations recited in the reference applications. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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).
Application Status Information
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). For assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
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 Jinney Kil can be reached at (571) 272-3191, on Monday-Thursday from 8:30AM-6:30PM ET. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/JINNEY KIL/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/fusion.html
2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition
4 Evangelista, Benny, et al. “The Age of Ignition.” (2023)
5 Griffiths, Thomas, et al. "Progress in Energy." (2022).
6 https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st
7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7
8 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a/full/
9 https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal
10 https://www.iter.org/fusion-energy/60-years-progress
11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsion