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 .
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Priority
Applicant states this application is a CIP of 17/803,107 but no such evidence is found in the file, and thus the instant application is treated with an effective filing date of 02/28/2024.
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 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites producing a product by cycling between opposing states within a tokamak. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claim elements, both individually and in combination, are directed towards manipulating well-known equations (E=mc2 and E=mc) within a well-known device (tokamak) and do not result in an improvement in the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because: Claim 2 discloses the presence of two additional equations.
Claim 3 discloses the presence of two more additional equations.
These additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Analysis
step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a series of steps, and is therefore a process.
step 2a, prong one — Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea because it recites inter alia a method for “producing an inner product, occurring between the two states, large-scale and quantum, wherein having the governing formulas, E = mc2 and e = mc, respectively, said inner product produced by cycling of these two said states, in both directions, causing to be directed by mc2 - mc, and by mc - mc2, wherein said inner product is rendered by solving for the constant speed of light in natural units.”
Therefore, under the 2019 Subject-Matter Eligibility Guidance, claim 1 falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.
step 2a, prong two — Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a process for manipulating mathematical formulas using a generic computer (“programming”) within a conventional apparatus (“tokamak”). These steps are performed either on a generic computer or in the human mind. These steps do not relate to the improvement of the functioning of a computer or to another technology.
Even though the steps are performed under the umbrella of nuclear fusion technology (tokamaks are nuclear fusion reactors), the execution of these steps does not result in the improvement of said technology because the only “nuclear”-related aspect of the method is the conventional tokamak itself. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
step 2b: Is there an inventive concept?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Other than the manipulation of formulas, the only additional element is a generic nuclear fusion reactor that is not positively recited and whose recitation simply sets the stage for the environment where the method can be applied. Thus, these elements do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The above analysis is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) — see MPEP 2106.04(II) and 2106.04(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–3 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 “an inner product” in line 1. The descriptor “inner” is unclear because it is unclear to what the product is inner to. The use of the term inner implies a relative arrangement which is undefined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two states" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the governing formulas" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "in both directions" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No directions have yet been defined.
Claim 1 recites in line 5 “causing to be directed.” This limitation is unclear because it has no subject.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the constant speed of light" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “in natural units” in line 7. It is unclear what units are considered “natural.”
Claim 1 recites “producing 2m per cycle” in line 8. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear what the subject is. What is producing? A binomial? A binomial is a mathematical concept and cannot perform the act of producing.
Claim 1 in line 9 recites “dark light/energy.” This limitation is unclear because it is unclear if “dark” is only a descriptor of light, or instead of both light and energy. This limitation is further unclear because “dark light/energy” is not a known term in the art with a clear meaning. For example, it is unclear what distinguishes light, e.g., UV radiation, from dark light.
Claim 1 in lines 9-10 recites “otherwise, zero.” It is entirely unclear to what previous limitation(s) this phrase is referring. Examiner cannot extract any meaning from this phrase.
Claim 1 at line 11 recites “wherein programming flow line.” This limitation is unclear because it appears to be missing some words. What is the subject? What is performing the programming? Is this a computer? And what is “flow line”? There is no antecedent basis for “flow line” in the claim.
Claim 1 at line 12 recites “repeating an alternating signature.” This limitation is unclear because it appears to be missing some words. What is the subject? What is performing the repeating? Additionally, there is no antecedent basis for “alternating signature” in the claim. It is unclear what feature or idea this corresponds to.
Claim 1 in lines 11-14 recites “wherein programming flow line, between toroidal and poloidal, repeating an alternating signature, from zero neutral to poloidal back to neutral, then to toroidal and then back to zero neutral, then repeating this indefinitely subject to shutoff.“ Examiner cannot extract any meaningful steps or functions from this limitation.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the invention" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the duration" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites in line 2 “change respective time” and “governing said process.” These limitations are unclear because they have no subject.
Claim 2 is further unclear because there are no steps being recited, and thus it is unclear if claim 2 is further continuing the process of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the invention" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation " duration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is further unclear because there are no steps being recited, and thus it is unclear if claim 3 is further continuing the process of claim 1.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by D’Zmura (US 2023/0260033 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, D’Zmura discloses (see claim 3) a process producing an inner product (“process producing an inner product”), occurring between the two states, large-scale and quantum (“occurring between the two states, large-scale and quantum”), wherein having the governing formulas, E = mc2 and e = mc, respectively, said inner product produced by cycling of these two said states, in both directions, causing to be directed by mc2 - mc, and by mc - mc2 (“wherein having the governing formulas, E=mc2 and e=mc, respectively, said inner product produced by cycling of these two said states, in both directions, causing to be directed by mc2 - mc, and by mc - mc2”) wherein said inner product is rendered by solving for the constant speed of light in natural units (“wherein said inner product is rendered by solving for the constant speed of light in natural units”), whereby a binomial is formed of one or zero, or alternately, negative one, producing 2m per cycle and - 2m per cycle, respectively, under dark light/energy, otherwise, zero (“whereby a binomial is formed of one or zero, or alternately, negative one, producing 2m per cycle and −2m per cycle, respectively, under dark light/energy, otherwise, zero”), said process occurring in an apparatus system of a tokamak (as best understood by the Examiner, the tokamak is not being positively recited, and nor does it appear the claimed process is limited by the type of enclosure within which it is performed), wherein programming flow line, between toroidal and poloidal, repeating an alternating signature, from zero neutral to poloidal back to neutral, then to toroidal and then back to zero neutral, then repeating this indefinitely subject to shutoff (as noted in the above indefiniteness rejection section, Examiner cannot presently determine any meaning from this limitation).
Regarding claim 2, D’Zmura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses the duration, change respective time, governing said process producing said inner product: for large-scale state, K=k(m2/r2); and for quantum state, k=e2/r2 (“the duration, change respective time, governing said process producing said inner product: for large-scale state, K=k(m2/r2); and for quantum state, k=e2/r2,” D’Zmura, claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, D’Zmura anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses duration in terms of the speed of light, wherein: for large-scale state, K=c4; and for quantum state, √k=c, and K=c2 (“duration in terms of the speed of light, wherein: for large-scale state, K=c4; and for quantum state, √k=c, and K=c2,” D’Zmura, claim 3)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646