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 with traverse of Species A3 (FIGS. 5-6), B1 (plasma characteristic not altered), C1 (reaction core in sphere or sphere-like shape), D1 (permanent gas or liquid), E1 (metal compressors connected to the same compression source), F1 (metal firing tubes/compressors arranged in multiple rows or concentric spherical arrangements), and G1 (metal filling tubes permanently fixed to firing tubes) in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no series search and/or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the species require a different field of search e.g., employing different search queries (directed towards the different reactor systems in Species A1 vs. A2 vs. A3 vs. A4; directed towards the different plasma altering characteristics in Species B1 vs. B2 vs. B3 vs. B4 vs. B5 vs. B6; directed towards the different reaction cores in Species C1 vs. C2; directed towards the different gas/liquids in Species D1 vs. D2; directed towards the different metal compressors in Species E1 vs. E2; directed towards the different firing tube/compressor arrangements in Species F1 vs. F2 vs. F3; directed towards the different connections in Species G1 vs. G2); and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another (art teaching the reactor system as in FIGS. 1-2 would not necessarily also teach a reactor system as in FIGS. 3-4, a reactor system as in FIGS. 5-6, and/or a reactor system as in FIGS. 7-8; art teaching not altering plasma characteristics would not necessarily also teach altering plasma by forming the plasma into an FRC, altering plasma by heating and charging the plasma, altering plasma using a fusor, altering plasma using a tokamak, and/or altering plasma using an acceleration device; art teaching a reactor core defined by a single outer wall would not necessarily also teach a reactor core formed of subassemblies; art teaching a permanent gas or liquid would not necessarily also teach a depleted gas or liquid; art teaching metal compressors connected to a same compression source would not necessarily also teach metal compressors which individually supply force; art teaching firing tubes/compressors arranged in multiple rows or concentric spherical arrangements would not necessarily also teach firing tubes/compressors on a track/circuit and/or firing tubes/compressors which are each movable by a movement device which sequentially pushes the firing tubes/compressors to the firing position). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species E2), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claim 14 withdrawn. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are examined herein.
Priority
The present application is a continuation of US 16/414,443 which is a continuation-in-part of PCT/US2017/062009 which claims the benefit of US 62/423,662. For purposes of prior art, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. A review of the priority documents shows that PCT/US2017/062009 and US 62/423,662 do not provide support for the subject matter in claims 1-13 and 15-20. For example, these priority applications do not provide support for the claimed “plurality of tubes extending radially outward from the core”, “storage unit configured to store liquid”, or “filling grid” (claims 1, 16, 20; c.f. FIGS. 5-6 of the present application, FIGS. 1, 3 of PCT/US2017/062009, FIG. 1 of US 62/423,662). This subject matter appears to have first been disclosed in parent application US 16/414,443 (see FIGS. 5-6, [0088]-[0089] of US 16/414,443). Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are therefore entitled to the filing date of parent application US 16/414,443 (i.e., 05/16/2019).
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 following features in claims 1, 5, 10-12, 16, and 20 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
“a core defining a plurality of openings” and “a first end [of each tube] interfacing with one of the plurality of openings” (claims 1, 16, 20) – the figures do not appear to show any openings
“each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a heater” (claim 5) – the figures do not appear to show each tube (20) having a heater
“each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a second heater” (claim 10) – the figures do not appear to show each tube (20) having a heater, or the system having multiple heaters (e.g., the “heater” from the phrase “the storage unit includes a heater” in parent claim 6 and the “each tube ... includ[ing] a second heater” in claim 10)
“each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a second heater” (claim 11) – the figures do not appear to show each tube (20) having a heater, or the system having multiple heaters (e.g., the “heater” from the phrase “the storage unit includes a first heater” and the “each tube ... includ[ing] a second heater”)
“a plurality of gates” (claims 12, 16, 20) – the figures do not appear to show or identify any “gates”
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.
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 claimed invention is directed towards “[a] system comprising: a core...; a plurality of tubes...; and a plurality of compressors” (claims 1, 16, 20). Applicant explicitly discloses the specific application and use of the claimed invention is for generating net energy fusion reactions ([003], [006], [019]-[021]). According to the disclosure, fusion fuel plasma is injected into a core (“core defining a plurality of openings” in claims 1, 16, 20) ([006], [089], [105], [109], [111]). Afterwards, pistons (“plurality of compressors” in claims 1, 16, 20 and “piston that translates at least partially through the respective tube associated therewith” in claim 15) accelerate a liquid metal towards the plasma in order to compress the plasma ([006], [030], [088]-[089], [098], [111]). The compression would allegedly apply sufficient pressure and heat to the plasma such that fusion reactions occur ([006], [020], [089], [111]). Applicant further purports these fusion reactions may be self-perpetuating ([115], [128]) and may produce substantial amounts of energy (e.g., 50 million MJ) and power (e.g., 50,000 MW) that could be used for practical applications such as for providing electrical energy to power grids and/or powering the components of the fusion system ([019]-[021], [031], [089], [093], [102], [128]; see also [003], [006], [039], [066], [082], [121]).
Applicant’s asserted utility of the claimed invention is therefore practical energy production (i.e., electrical power) from fusion reactions.
Background on Nuclear Fusion and Net Energy
Initiating fusion reactions requires overcoming the Coulomb barrier, which is only known to occur at extremely high temperatures (i.e., energies) (such as temperatures in the range of 107-108 K) and at extremely high pressures (such as those present on the sun)1. In order to be economically viable (i.e., a practical source of energy), a fusion system must be able to create these conditions and maintain, for a minimum length of time, a plasma of fusion fuel having a temperature and density sufficient for initiating and sustaining fusion reactions which generate more energy than is lost in creating the reactions (i.e., a “net energy gain” or “net energy fusion”). Fusion systems which are capable of obtaining a net energy gain are said to satisfy the Lawson criterion, which is the minimum value of the product of the plasma temperature, density, and confinement time that can produce a net energy gain2. However, net energy fusion has been “one of the most significant scientific challenges ever tackled by humanity”3 and, despite decades of extensive research carried out by the international scientific community, there currently exist no fusion systems capable of producing such useful energy gain for practical applications4.
Two of the main approaches for attempting to achieve net energy fusion are inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and magnetic confinement fusion (MCF)4,5.
ICF systems use lasers to rapidly compress and heat a solid fusion fuel in order to produce (or attempt to produce) an extremely hot and dense plasma with a short confinement time5. For example, the National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the world’s largest operational thermonuclear ICF system and uses 192 of the world’s highest-energy laser systems to deliver as much as 500 trillion watts of power to a target in order to create the necessary conditions for fusion. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly produced 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration of a fusion target producing more energy than was delivered to the target and the results of the experiment have been hailed as “one of the most impressive scientific feats of the 21st century” and a “fusion breakthrough”. However, the laser system itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. In other words, the system operated at an overall net energy loss. 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.
MCF systems use powerful magnets to confine and shape a lower density fusion fuel plasma with a longer confinement time, often employing external heating mechanisms to provide (or attempt to provide) the required temperatures for fusion reactions4,5 (see also [018]). For example, ITER is an international, multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar project that plans to build one of the world’s largest thermonuclear fusion systems5,9. ITER’s system is an MCF device known as a tokamak and will employ various complex and sophisticated components, such as neutral beam injectors, ohmic heating devices, cyclotrons, cryogenic systems, and the world’s largest and most integrated superconducting magnet system, in order to generate fusion reactions10. While ITER hopes to achieve breakeven, such a feat has not yet been accomplished5,9. The Joint European Torus (JET) is another tokamak device and currently holds the world record for fusion power, producing 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW9. Thus, again, although an achievement in fusion, the JET experiment was also far from a demonstration of practical energy production.
A third, relatively unexplored approach to fusion is known as magneto-inertial fusion (MIF) or magnetized target fusion (MTF), which combines features of ICF and MCF. In MTF schemes, a fusion fuel is confined by a magnetic field and compressed in order to produce (or attempt to produce) the conditions required for fusion reactions5,11. For example, General Fusion has proposed an MTF system which delivers energy to a liquid medium using mechanical pistons in order to compress a fusion fuel plasma5,11,12. The leading motivation for exploring MTF is the potential to satisfy the Lawson criterion by confining the plasma at an intermediate plasma density (between the densities required for ICF and MCF) for an intermediate confinement time (between the confinement times required for ICF and MCF)5,11. However, the scientific community’s understanding of the behavior and fundamental physics of plasmas at these densities is extremely limited compared to the established knowledge of the more mature ICF and MCF approaches5,11,13. Further, MTF faces many of the same challenges as ICF and MCF while also introducing MTF-specific challenges that are highly dependent on the individual concept5,11,13. As such, MTF designs are significantly less developed and, to date, no working prototype of an actual MTF reactor has been constructed4,5,13. Although General Fusion has been developing its MTF system for over 20 years, the design is still being developed and an actual operational fusion power system has not yet been constructed12.
No matter the approach, fusion systems and the underlying mechanisms for generating fusion reactions are complex4,5,13. Small variations in a component, parameter, or design of a fusion system can significantly modify the challenges, performance, and outcome of the system. For example, in MTF systems, the specific design, materials, and parameters of components such as the plasma injection mechanism, driver, liner, target, and synchronization and control systems can define the system’s plasma confinement capabilities4,5,11.
The Present Invention and Net Energy
As best understood by Examiner, Applicant’s fusion system uses an MTF concept similar to the concept employed by General Fusion. Namely, as discussed above, Applicant’s system attempts to generate fusion reactions by using mechanical pistons to accelerate liquid metal in order to compress a fusion fuel plasma ([006], [030], [088]-[089], [098], [111]).
Despite the sensitivity, dependence, and unpredictability of fusion outcomes, Applicant alleges its system can achieve net energy fusion under a wide variety of designs and parameters. For example, the specification discloses (emphasis added):
“other shapes (e.g., cylinder, cube, tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, etc.) for the reaction core 95 may be utilized” ([088])
“The reactor 10 may include various quantities of the metal tiring [sic] tubes 20 (e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 60, 100, etc.). The metal firing tubes 20 may be positioned in various patterns around the reaction core 95 (i.e., in various grid patterns, higher densities patterns towards the top and bottom of the reaction core 95, in honeycomb patterns, etc.). The metal firing tubes 20 may be various shapes (e.g. cylinders, triangle, oval, etc.)” ([090])
“The liquid metal in the reaction core 95 and/or the metal firing tubes 20 may be various combinations of molten lead-lithium.... [T]he liquid metal in reaction core 95 and/or metal firing tubes 20 is substantially pure liquid lithium and/or enriched liquid lithium.... [T]he liquid metal in reaction core 95 and/or metal firing tubes 20 may include various combinations of iron, nickel, cobalt, copper, aluminum, and/or other metals or alloys thereof” ([095])
“the liquid metal in reaction core 95 is heated to between ten and ten-thousand keV” ([096])
“the metal compressors 60 may impact the liquid metal in the metal firing tubes 20 at a very high speed, thereby causing the liquid metal in the metal firing tubes 20 to accelerate at a high rate and reach a high speed (e.g., 50 mph, 100 mph, 150 mph, 200 mph, 500 mph, 1000 mph, 2000 mph, etc.)” ([098])
“Pistons may be driven at relatively high speeds such that piston heads move at between, for example, ten meters per second and over one-thousand meters per second” ([099])
“the charge resetting devices 65 may be configured to reset the charges in less than a second, less than two seconds, less than three second, or longer” ([102])
“Any of the second pressure, density, and temperature [of the plasma] may be greater than the first pressure, density, and temperature. This difference and/or these differences may be multiple, an order of magnitude, or greater” ([106])
“In some embodiments, it is desired to alter characteristics of the plasma before it is fired into reaction core 95.... Plasma charging and firing devices 40 may, independently or cooperatively with additional plasma charging and firing devices 40, charge ..., magnetize, shape, transform, heat, cool, accelerate, and/or otherwise alter the characteristics of the plasma” ([107])
“In some applications, plasma charging and firing device 40 forms the plasma into a low-density, low-temperature spheromak ring.... In other examples, plasma charging and firing device 40 forms the plasma into a field-reversed configuration (FRC), compact toroid, and/or other toroidal shapes” ([108])
“plasma charging and firing device 40 may utilize various combinations of the plasmas of deuterium, tritium, helium-3, lithium-6, lithium-7, and/or other plasmas” ([109])
“plasma charging and firing devices 40 may charge and heat the plasma to between five and two-hundred kiloelectron Volts (keV)” ([110])
“The reactor 10 may be different sizes (5 ft in diameter, 10 ft in diameter, 15 ft in diameter, 20 ft in diameter, 25 ft in diameter, sizes in between units provided, larger sizes than units provided, or smaller sizes than units provided” ([116])
Not only does Applicant suggest a remarkably flexible system with a wide range of configurations, Applicant further does not provide any indication that the aforementioned challenges in MTF have been resolved. For example, how does the present invention achieve the precision and control required for a highly symmetrical and uniform compression where previous attempts have failed to do so5? What mechanisms does the present invention use to avoid Rayleigh-Tayler instabilities11? What prevents the liquid metal from mixing or polluting the plasma which has previously resulted in unacceptably large radiation (i.e., energy/temperature) losses11? How are diagnostic systems – necessary for operating and controlling a fusion reactor – integrated into the present invention4,5,11,13?
While the most promising fusion experiments to date have been unable to achieve a net energy gain, the present invention would purportedly be capable of producing a practical power output based on the underexplored concept of MTF. In other words, although established systems (such as those used by the NIF, ITER, and JET experiments) operate at an overall energy deficit and, to date, no operable MTF reactor has been constructed, the present invention allegedly uses an MTF approach to successfully initiate fusion reactions which produce more energy than is required for initiating and sustaining the reactions.
Conclusion
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, Applicant has not provided sufficient, objective support for the purported practical energy production 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 electrical power production from fusion reactions 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.
Further, 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 initiating and sustaining fusion reactions for electrical power generation. There exist no systems to date which have successfully produced a useful energy gain from 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 practical, direct energy conversion from fusion reactions:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims are directed towards a “system comprising” “a core...; a plurality of tubes...; a storage unit...; a filling grid...; and a plurality of compressors” (claim 1), “a core...; a plurality of tubes...; a plurality of gates...; and a plurality of compressors” (claim 16), and “a core...; a plurality of tubes...; a plurality of compressors...; a filling grid...; a fueling grid...; and a plurality of gates” (claim 20) which would allegedly generate net energy fusion ([019], [088]-[089], [093], [111]). However, as shown in the above analysis, to date, there are no fusion systems capable of obtaining a net energy gain. This suggests that, if Applicant’s claimed invention is capable of such a feat, essential mechanisms for causing these reactions have been omitted from the claims. Even slight changes to any of the numerous design aspects of a fusion system, let alone major changes such as changes in the fusion fuel material, the temperatures/energies applied to the system, and/or the shape of the plasma, can significantly modify the outcomes of the system. However, the claims fail to specify these specific design aspects necessary to make and use a system for initiating fusion reactions that are capable of generating electrical power. 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 as a viable energy source. The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands the concepts of nuclear fusion, nuclear reactions, and energy conversion processes and would be capable of delving into the scientific literature on the topics and ascertaining how they could be applied to the present invention. As discussed above, all fusion reactors have operated at an overall energy deficit and the effects disclosed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work. Therefore, a skilled artisan would be unable to use the available scientific literature to initiate net energy fusion reactions using the claimed system because such reactions have 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, even the most successful fusion experiments to date have not been able to obtain a net energy gain despite over half a century of research. Small variations in a component or parameter of a fusion system can dictate the performance and outcomes of the system. Applicant has therefore set forth the desired result of net energy fusion using an unpredictable mechanism without identifying how one could achieve this result. 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, net energy fusion has never before been achieved, suggesting that a complete disclosure of the structure, materials, and steps for causing fusion reactions in this manner are required to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the disclosed invention. However, Applicant fails to provide a detailed explanation as to the structure, materials, and steps for initiating the alleged reactions for useful energy production. 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 a net energy gain 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 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.
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 1-13 and 15-20 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 the 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)).
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons set forth in the above analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 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 1-13 and 15-20 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 1-13 and 15-20 are still further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the same reasons set forth in the above objection to the specification as well as in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, which are accordingly incorporated herein. 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, “Obviously, 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, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while allegedly being enabling for a fusion system, does not reasonably provide enablement for a generic system. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. As discussed above, the disclosure clearly establishes that the claimed system is a fusion system ([003]-[006], [019]-[020]). Applicant only provides support for using the claimed invention to confine and manipulate plasma to allegedly induce net energy fusion reactions, and has not disclosed any other use for the invention. However, the claims as currently presented encompass any system (for any use) comprising the recited structures (i.e., a non-fusion system). The broad scope of the claims is therefore not reasonably supported by the scope of enablement in the specification.
Claims 1, 3, 12, 14-18, and 20 are still further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the disclosure of US Patent No. 5,634,777 (“Albertin”) (newly cited), which discloses a system having the structure recited in claims 1, 3, 12, 14-18, and 20, and US Publication No. 2020/0245445 (“Zimmermann”) (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS), which discloses a system having the structure recited in claim 16 (see below rejections). Applicant asserts the claimed invention is capable of producing net energy fusion reactions ([003]-[006], [019]-[020]). However, as shown in the above analyses, mechanisms for producing net energy fusion reactions are unproven and unworkable. Accordingly, if Applicant’s system is operative, while Albertin’s and Zimmermann’s are not, then Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant’s disclosure that makes Applicant’s invention operative.
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, 3, 12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albertin.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 16-18, and 20, Albertin (newly cited) (see FIGS. 3-7, 30) discloses a system (“D”) comprising:
a core (e.g., defined by element 6) defining a plurality of openings (“bore”) (6:61-7:7);
a plurality of tubes (5) extending radially outward from the core, wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes (i) a first end (e.g., radially innermost end) interfacing with one of the plurality of openings and (ii) an opposing second end (e.g., radially outermost end), and wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a fill port (13) positioned along an exterior thereof between the first end and the opposing second end thereof (6:61-7:7, 10:51-53);
a storage unit/liquid source (“source”) configured to store liquid, wherein the storage unit/liquid source is positioned remote from the core and the plurality of tubes (4:46-50, 7:29-52, 12:42-48);
a plurality of compressors (4, 8, 14), wherein each compressor of the plurality of compressors is associated with a respective tube of the plurality of tubes and is positioned at the opposing second end of the respective tube (6:61-7:19, 7:29-52, 10:51-56);
a filling grid (7) positioned around and concentric with the core, wherein the filling grid includes a plurality of fill lines, wherein each fill line of the plurality of fill lines is fluidly coupled to the fill port of a respective tube of the plurality of tubes, and wherein the filling grid is fluidly coupled to the storage unit/liquid source (7:29-52); and
a fueling grid (11, 17) positioned around the core and the filling grid, wherein the fueling grid includes a plurality of fuel lines, wherein each fuel line of the plurality of fuel lines is fluidly coupled to a respective compressor of the plurality of compressors, and wherein the fueling grid is configured to fluidly couple to a fuel source (FIG. 30, 7:29-52, 11:24-42); and
a plurality of gates (40), wherein each gate of the plurality of gates is positioned at a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the core such that the plurality of gates are positioned to selectively prevent a backflow of liquid from the core through the plurality of openings and the first end of the plurality of tubes into the plurality of tubes (11:8-14).
Regarding claim 3, Albertin discloses the system of Claim 1 and further discloses a compressor fuel charger (45) and a fueling grid (11, 17) positioned around and concentric with the filling grid, wherein the fueling grid includes a plurality of fuel lines, wherein each fuel line of the plurality of fuel lines is fluidly coupled to a respective compressor of the plurality of compressors, and wherein the fueling grid is fluidly coupled to the compressor fuel charger (FIGS. 3-5, 30, 7:29-52, 11:24-42).
Regarding claim 14, Albertin discloses the system of Claim 1 and further discloses the plurality of compressors are powered or driven by a centralized source (4:46-50, 7:29-52, 11:19-31).
Regarding claim 15, Albertin discloses the system of Claim 1 and further discloses each compressor of the plurality of compressors includes a piston (4) that translates at least partially through the respective tube associated therewith (FIGS. 3-6, 7:29-52).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zimmermann.
Regarding claim 16, Zimmermann (see FIGS. 9, 11; see also FIG. 12) discloses a system (1200) comprising:
a core (13, 1213) defining a plurality of openings (15, 16) (FIG. 2, [0030], [0033], [0044]);
a plurality of tubes (46, 146) extending radially outward from the core, wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes (i) a first end (e.g., end along 45) interfacing with one of the plurality of openings and (ii) an opposing second end (e.g., end along 47) (FIGS. 5-6, [0039], [0044]);
a plurality of gates (“ridges”, “scales”), wherein each gate of the plurality of gates is positioned at a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the core such that the plurality of gates are positioned to selectively prevent a backflow of liquid from the core through the plurality of openings and the first end of the plurality of tubes into the plurality of tubes ([0043]); and
a plurality of compressors (82), wherein each compressor of the plurality of compressors is associated with a respective tube of the plurality of tubes and is positioned at the opposing second end of the respective tube ([0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of US Publication No. 2007/0248470 (“Tessien”).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmerman (see FIGS. 9, 11; see also FIG. 12) discloses a system (1200) comprising:
a core (13, 1213) defining a plurality of openings (15, 16) (FIG. 2, [0030], [0033], [0044]);
a plurality of tubes (46, 146, “housing”) extending radially outward from the core, wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes (i) a first end (e.g., end along 45) interfacing with one of the plurality of openings and (ii) an opposing second end (84) (FIGS. 5-6, [0039], [0044], [0046]-[0047]), and wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a fill port (54) positioned along an exterior thereof between the first end and the opposing second end (FIG. 7, [0040], [0044]);
a filling grid (20) positioned around and concentric with the core, wherein the filling grid includes a plurality of fill lines, wherein each fill line of the plurality of fill lines is fluidly coupled to the fill port of a respective tube of the plurality of tubes ([0031], [0039]-[0040]); and
a plurality of compressors (82), wherein each compressor of the plurality of compressors is associated with a respective tube of the plurality of tubes and is positioned at the opposing second end of the respective tube ([0044]).
Zimmermann does not appear to disclose a storage unit as recited in claim 1. Tessien (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIG. 7; see also FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a cavitation system comprising a core (101) and a filling mechanism (301, 303) for circulating a liquid metal ([0026], [0034]-[0036], [0048]; see Zimmermann, [0030]-[0031]). Tessien teaches the system further comprises a storage unit (303) configured to store liquid, wherein the storage unit is positioned remote from the core and wherein the filling mechanism is fluidly coupled to the storage unit ([0035]-[0036]). Tessien further teaches the storage unit provides the advantages of containing the liquid and providing the liquid to the system as needed ([0035]-[0036]). It would have therefore been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date (“POSA”) to include a storage unit as taught by Tessien in Zimmermann’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Zimmermann in order to store the liquid, as suggested by Tessien, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 2, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses the core has a spherical shape (FIGS. 9, 11, [0034]). Zimmermann does not appear to disclose the filling grid has a spherical shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Zimmermann’s filling grid to have a spherical shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses the liquid may be a liquid metal ([0030]), but does not appear to disclose each of the tubes includes a heater. However, Tessien further teaches the system comprises a plurality of tubes (103, 301) which receive and transport a liquid metal (FIGS. 3, 7, [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0048]). Tessien teaches each of the tubes includes a heater (705, 709) configured to thermally regulate the liquid received thereby (FIG. 7, [0049]). The skilled artisan would have recognized that some heating mechanism would be necessary in order to prevent the modified Zimmermann’s liquid metal from solidifying (Zimmermann, [0030]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a heater, as suggested by Tessien, in each of the modified Zimmermann’s tubes (which receive and transport liquid metal) for the predictable advantage of maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Tessien teaches the storage unit includes a heater (703) configured to thermally regulate the liquid therein (FIG. 7, [0049]). Thus, Zimmermann, modified to include the storage unit as taught by Tessien, would have resulted in the features of claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 6. As discussed above, Tessien teaches the storage unit includes a heater (703) (FIG. 7, [0049]). Zimmermann discloses the liquid may be a liquid metal ([0030]), but does not appear to disclose each of the tubes includes a heater. However, Tessien further teaches the system comprises a plurality of tubes (103, 301) which receive and transport a liquid metal (FIGS. 3, 7, [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0048]). Tessien teaches each of the tubes includes a heater (705, 709) configured to thermally regulate the liquid received thereby (FIG. 7, [0049]). The skilled artisan would have recognized that some heating mechanism would be necessary in order to prevent the modified Zimmermann’s liquid metal from solidifying (Zimmermann, [0030]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a second heater, as suggested by Tessien, in each of the modified Zimmermann’s tubes (which receive and transport liquid metal) for the predictable advantage of maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 12, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses a plurality of gates (“ridges”, “scales”), wherein each gate of the plurality of gates is positioned proximate a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the core such that the plurality of gates are positioned to selectively prevent a backflow of the liquid from the core through the plurality of openings and into the plurality of tubes ([0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses each compressor of the plurality of compressors includes a piston (86) that translates at least partially through the respective tube associated therewith (FIGS. 9, 11, [0044]).
Regarding claim 17, Zimmermann discloses the system of claim 16 and further discloses each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a fill port (54) positioned between the first end and the opposing second end thereof (FIG. 7, [0040], [0044]) and a filling grid (20) positioned around the core, wherein the filling grid includes a plurality of fill lines, wherein each fill line of the plurality of fill lines is fluidly coupled to the fill port of a respective tube of the plurality of tubes (FIG. 9, [0031], [0039]-[0040]). Zimmermann does not appear to disclose the filling grid is configured to fluidly couple to a liquid source as recited in claim 17. Tessien (see FIG. 7; see also FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a cavitation system comprising a core (101) and a filling mechanism (301, 303) for circulating a liquid metal ([0026], [0034]-[0036], [0048]; see Zimmermann, [0030]-[0031]). Tessien teaches the system further comprises a liquid source (303) positioned remote from the core and fluidly coupled to the filling grid ([0035]-[0036]). Tessien further teaches the liquid source provides the advantages of containing the liquid and providing the liquid to the system as needed ([0035]-[0036]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a liquid source as taught by Tessien in Zimmermann’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Zimmermann in order to store the liquid, as suggested by Tessien, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Regarding claim 19, Zimmermann discloses the systems of claim 16. Zimmermann discloses the liquid may be a liquid metal ([0030]), but does not appear to disclose a liquid source or a heater. Tessien (see FIG. 7; see also FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a cavitation system comprising a core (101) and a filling mechanism (301, 303) for circulating a liquid metal ([0026], [0034]-[0036], [0048]; see Zimmermann, [0030]-[0031]). Tessien teaches the system further comprises a liquid source (303) configured to store a supply of liquid, wherein the liquid source is fluidly coupled to the filling mechanism ([0035]-[0036]), and wherein the liquid source includes a heater (703) configured to thermally regulate the supply of liquid stored therein ([0049]). Tessien further teaches the liquid source provides the advantages of containing the liquid and providing the liquid to the system as needed ([0035]-[0036]). Further, the skilled artisan would have recognized that some heating mechanism would be necessary in order to prevent Zimmermann’s liquid metal from solidifying (Zimmermann, [0030]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a liquid source and associated heater, as taught by Tessien, in Zimmermann’s system for the predictable advantage of storing and maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of US Publication No. 2005/0129161 (“Laberge”).
Regarding claim 18, Zimmermann discloses the system of claim 16. Zimmermann discloses a driver for operating the compressors ([0044]), but appears to be silent as to the specific structure(s) and arrangement(s) of the driver. Laberge (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a system (10A) comprising a core (14) and a plurality of compressors (32) ([0027], [0036], [0041]). Laberge teaches the system further comprises a fueling grid (30) positioned around the core, wherein the fueling grid includes a plurality of fuel lines, wherein each fuel line of the plurality of fuel lines is fluidly coupled to a respective compressor of the plurality of compressors, and wherein the fueling grid is configured to fluidly couple to a fuel source ([0041]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to employ the compressor fueling mechanism as taught by Laberge (e.g., including a fueling grid) in Zimmermann’s system because Laberge teaches this as a suitable mechanism for introducing a spherically symmetric pulse ([0041]).
Claims 3-4, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of Tessien further in view of Laberge.
Regarding claim 3, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses a driver for operating the compressors ([0044]), but appears to be silent as to the specific structure(s) and arrangement(s) of the driver. Laberge (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a system (10A) comprising a core (28) and a plurality of compressors (32) ([0027], [0036], [0041]). Laberge teaches the system further comprises a compressor fuel charger (44) and a fueling grid (30) positioned around and concentric with the core and a filling grid (14, 26), wherein the fueling grid includes a plurality of fuel lines, wherein each fuel line of the plurality of fuel lines is fluidly coupled to a respective compressor of the plurality of compressors, and wherein the fueling grid is fluidly coupled to the compressor fuel charger ([0041]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to employ the compressor fueling mechanism as taught by Laberge (e.g., including a compressor fuel charger and a fueling grid) in the modified Zimmermann’s system because Laberge teaches this as a suitable mechanism for introducing a spherically symmetric pulse ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Zimmermann in view of Tessien and Laberge teaches the system of claim 4. Zimmermann discloses the core has a spherical shape (FIGS. 9, 11, [0034]) and Laberge teaches the fueling grid has a spherical shape (FIG. 1). Zimmermann does not appear to disclose the filling grid has a spherical shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Zimmermann’s filling grid to have a spherical shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Zimmermann discloses a driver for operating the compressors ([0044]), but appears to be silent as to the specific structure(s) and arrangement(s) of the driver. Laberge (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a system (10A) comprising a core (14) and a plurality of compressors (32) ([0027], [0036], [0041]). Laberge teaches the compressors are powered or driven by a centralized source (44) ([0041]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to employ a centralized source as taught by Laberge in the modified Zimmermann’s system because Laberge teaches this as a suitable driving mechanism for introducing a spherically symmetric pulse ([0041]). Additionally, the skilled artisan would have recognized that providing a centralized source would reduce the amount of equipment needed to drive the modified Zimmermann’s compressors.
Regarding claim 20, Zimmermann (see FIGS. 9, 11; see also FIG. 12) discloses a system (1200) comprising:
a core (13, 1213) defining a plurality of openings (15, 16) (FIG. 2, [0030], [0033], [0044]);
a plurality of tubes (46, 146, “housing”) extending radially outward from the core, wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes (i) a first end (e.g., end along 45) interfacing with one of the plurality of openings and (ii) an opposing second end (84) (FIGS. 5-6, [0039], [0044], [0046]-[0047]), and wherein each tube of the plurality of tubes includes a fill port (54) positioned between the first end and the opposing second end thereof (FIG. 7, [0040], [0044]);
a plurality of compressors (82), wherein each compressor of the plurality of compressors is associated with a respective tube of the plurality of tubes and is positioned at the opposing second end of the respective tube ([0044]);
a filling grid (20) positioned around the core, wherein the filling grid includes a plurality of fill lines, wherein each fill line of the plurality of fill lines is fluidly coupled to the fill port of a respective tube of the plurality of tubes ([0031], [0039]-[0040]); and
a plurality of gates (“ridges”, “scales”), wherein each gate of the plurality of gates is positioned at a respective opening of the plurality of openings of the core such that the plurality of gates are positioned to prevent a backflow of liquid from the core through the plurality of openings and the first end of the plurality of tubes into the plurality of tubes ([0043]).
Zimmermann does not appear to disclose the filling grid is configured to fluidly couple to a liquid source as recited in claim 20. Tessien (see FIG. 7; see also FIG. 3) is similarly directed towards a cavitation system comprising a core (101) and a filling mechanism (301, 303) for circulating a liquid metal ([0026], [0034]-[0036], [0048]; see Zimmermann, [0030]-[0031]). Tessien teaches the system further comprises a liquid source (303) positioned remote from the core and fluidly coupled to the filling mechanism ([0035]-[0036]). Tessien further teaches the liquid source provides the advantages of containing the liquid and providing the liquid to the system as needed ([0035]-[0036]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a liquid source as taught by Tessien in Zimmermann’s system for the benefits thereof. Thus, modification of Zimmermann in order to store the liquid, as suggested by Tessien, would have been obvious to a POSA.
Zimmermann discloses a driver for operating the compressors ([0044]), but appears to be silent as to the specific structure(s) and arrangement(s) of the driver. Laberge (see FIG. 1) is similarly directed towards a system (10A) comprising a core (14) and a plurality of compressors (32) ([0027], [0036], [0041]). Laberge teaches the system further comprises a fueling grid (30) positioned around the core and a filling grid (14, 26), wherein the fueling grid includes a plurality of fuel lines, wherein each fuel line of the plurality of fuel lines is fluidly coupled to a respective compressor of the plurality of compressors, and wherein the fueling grid is configured to fluidly couple to a fuel source ([0041]). It would have been obvious to a POSA to employ the compressor fueling mechanism as taught by Laberge (e.g., including a fueling grid) in the modified Zimmermann’s system because Laberge teaches this as a suitable mechanism for introducing a spherically symmetric pulse ([0041]).
Claims 7-9 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of Tessien further in view of US Publication No. 2006/0051599 (“Jahedi”).
Regarding claims 7-9, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 6, but appears to be silent as to thermally insulating the plurality of fill lines and/or the plurality of tubes and/or the storage unit. However, Zimmermann discloses the fill lines and the tubes transport liquid metal ([0030]). Tessien similarly teaches the storage unit contains liquid metal ([0048]). Jahedi (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS) teaches structures for transporting or containing liquid metal may be thermally insulated ([0002], [0024], [0044]). Jahedi further teaches the insulation helps to prevent corrosion and solidification of the liquid metal ([0002]-[0004], [0044]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to thermally insulate the structures of the modified Zimmermann’s system which transport or contain the liquid metal (e.g., the modified Zimmermann’s fill lines, tubes, and storage unit), as suggested by Jahedi, for the predictable advantage of reducing wear and delaying solidification of the liquid metal. The skilled artisan would have further recognized that providing the thermal insulation would assist the heaters in maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Zimmermann in view of Tessien teaches the system of claim 1. Tessien teaches the storage unit includes a heater (703) configured to thermally regulate the liquid therein (FIG. 7, [0049]). The modified Zimmermann appears to be silent as to thermally insulating the plurality of fill lines and/or the plurality of tubes and/or the storage unit. However, Zimmermann discloses the fill lines and the tubes transport liquid metal ([0030]). Tessien similarly teaches the storage unit contains liquid metal ([0048]). Jahedi teaches structures for transporting and containing liquid metal may be thermally insulated ([0002], [0024], [0044]). Jahedi further teaches the insulation helps to prevent corrosion and solidification of the liquid metal ([0002]-[0004], [0044]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to thermally insulate the structures of the modified Zimmermann’s system which transport or contain the liquid metal (e.g., the modified Zimmermann’s fill lines, tubes, and storage unit), as suggested by Jahedi, for the predictable advantage of reducing wear and delaying solidification of the liquid metal. The skilled artisan would have further recognized that providing the thermal insulation would assist the heaters in maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Zimmermann discloses the liquid may be a liquid metal ([0030]), but does not appear to disclose each of the tubes includes a heater. However, Tessien further teaches the system comprises a plurality of tubes (103, 301) which receive and transport a liquid metal (FIGS. 3, 7, [0030], [0035]-[0036], [0048]). Tessien teaches each of the tubes includes a heater (705, 709) (FIG. 7, [0049]). The skilled artisan would have recognized that some heating mechanism would be necessary in order to prevent the modified Zimmermann’s liquid metal from solidifying (Zimmermann, [0030]). It would have therefore been obvious to a POSA to include a second heater, as suggested by Tessien, in each of the modified Zimmermann’s tubes (which transport liquid metal) for the predictable advantage of maintaining a desired temperature and state of the liquid, as taught by Tessien ([0047]-[0049]).
Objection to Title
The specification is further objected to because the title of the invention is not descriptive. As discussed above, the present invention is clearly directed towards a nuclear fusion system (see [003]-[006], [019]-[020]). The disclosure does not appear to assert any other utility for the invention nor does the invention have a readily apparent, well-established, specific and substantial utility that is credible. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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/coubar.html (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
2 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/lawson.html (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
3 https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
4 Griffiths, Thomas, et al. "Progress in Energy." (2022) (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
5 Pearson, Richard J. and Takeda, Shutaro. “Chapter 2: Review of approaches to fusion energy.” Commercialising Fusion Energy: How small businesses are transforming big science. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing, 2020 (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
6 https://www.llnl.gov/news/shot-ages-fusion-ignition-breakthrough-hailed-one-most-impressive-scientific-feats-21st (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
7 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598 (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
8 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20221213a/full/ (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
9 https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
10 https://www.iter.org/mach/magnets (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
11 Wurden, Glen A., et al. "Magneto-inertial fusion." Journal of Fusion Energy 35 (2016): 69-77 (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
12 https://generalfusion.com/fusion-technology (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
13 Pearson, Richard J. “Chapter 10: Fusion innovation: understanding the engineering challenges to commercial fusion.” Commercialising Fusion Energy: How small businesses are transforming big science. Bristol, UK: IOP Publishing, 2020 (cited via Applicant-submitted IDS)
Prosecution Insights