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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Pro Se
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 www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney.
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 not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility.
In Brenner v. Manson, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—the is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) accordingly explains that the purpose of the utility requirement is “to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research.” MPEP § 2103, A., I.
Thus USPTO has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt an Appellant's presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.”’ In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the claims are directed to an approach to particle synthesis via nuclear fusion:
Claim 1: The synthesis of any man made particle by the method of Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis especially the synthesis of Neutronium Quantum Substrates and “Red Matter” Quantum Substrates.
Claim 2: The Synthesis of Neutronium Quantum Substrates which are constructed of a Proton and Anti-Proton along with three Neutrons being a charge of 0 along with the anti-matter version of the quarks being the anti-matter version of the particle.
Claim 3: The Synthesis of “Red Matter” Quantum Substrates which are constructed of a Top quark and anti-Top quark along with two Up quarks and a Down quark being a charge of +1 or -1 being the matter or anti-matter version of the quarks with opposite charge in the anti-matter version of the particle.
Applicant asserts that the present invention is for production of new particles in a conventional tokamak fusion reactor: “[E]xisting fusion reactors could be used for this process given some adjustments such as a particle accelerator feeding into the reaction chamber with the constituent quark gluon plasma for the specific particle you wanted to make such as “Red Matter” Quantum Substrates or Neutronium Quantum Substrates,” specification1 at ¶ 6. Applicant alleges that this interaction is simply caused by operating a conventional fusion reactor but with “adjustments such as a particle accelerator,” specification at ¶ 6, wherein protons are collided together, the resulting plasma is accelerated to near the speed of light, and the constituent quarks within the chamber are magnetically confined before they decay, and then the magnetic field will compress the quarks to synthesize the desired quantum substrates, specification at ¶ 7.
There is no reputable evidence of record to support the claim that the present invention involves creating new particles (“synthesis of any man made particle,” claim 1); nor does the specification provide acceptable evidence that the invention is capable of operating as indicated or capable of providing a useful output.
The presumption that new particles can be created by manipulating magnetically confined quarks within a tokamak reactor is wholly unsupported by the laws of physics and nuclear science. The ordinary skilled artisan is unable to manipulate subatomic quarks with a magnetic field to the degree of precision required to synthesize new, desirable particles/”quantum substrates.” The ordinary skilled artisan cannot achieve this incredible feat without a set of explicit instructions, which Applicant fails to provide.
Applicant’s contrived mechanism of magnetically compressing quarks in a tokamak reactor to create new particles is incompatible with modern nuclear physics. There is no known way to orchestrate such a process.
The Specification alleges the creation of new particles, but it does not provide any experimental evidence. Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction for particle production as claimed. The lack of any experimental results, or of any supporting evidence from a third party, also weigh in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter, if even operative, lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
There are known mechanisms for achieving hot nuclear fusion (such as in a tokamak), but this application explicitly alleges a “new” kind of fusion, described in the specification at ¶¶ 6–7. For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion and particle synthesis at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
The claimed invention is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”).
Reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions—a recipe—that would enable a skilled artisan to produce and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community (i.e., outside of Applicant’s own laboratory or simulations) has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
In view of the above, it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would doubt the effective obtention of a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful electricity as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims. Rather, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that as of the effective date, the claimed method was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejection, which are incorporated herein. The use of a tokamak fusion reactor to synthesize new particles (“quantum substrates,” claims 1–3) is considered to be Applicant’s specified utility. The Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant's invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. See In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable, i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they claims are directed towards a synthesis per se, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
As set forth in MPEP § 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted,
“Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the Specification cannot enable one to use it.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility for the same reasons set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (which are incorporated herein), one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejections, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the best mode contemplated by the inventor(s) has not been disclosed. Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon the disclosure of the Forum (see below 102 rejection section) publication cited herein. Forum discloses a toroidal chamber for synthesis of Red Matter Quantum Substrates, i.e., Applicant’s claimed invention. However, as shown above, this synthesis remains unproven and unworkable for the purposes of useful particle generation. Accordingly, if Applicant's device/method is operative, while Forum’s is not, then the Examiner must conclude that some essential information is missing from Applicant's disclosure that makes Applicant's invention operative.
Claims 1–3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
To be enabling, the disclosure, as filed, must be sufficiently complete to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and a use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of the claimed invention.
Applicant asserts they have produced an operative invention for achieving controlled nuclear fusion for useful particle production (claims 1–3 and Specification at ¶¶ 6-7).
To determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, a determination that the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement. Specifically:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claims (e.g., see claims 1–3) are very broad, simply reciting the “synthesis” of a particle or a quantum substrate but without specific steps or structure for doing so.
(B) The nature of the invention: The subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who can create and operate nuclear fusion reactors using conventional technology.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Following the instructions in the specification for synthesizing new particles would not enable a skilled artisan to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant’s disclosure does not provide the necessary step-by-step guide to actually achieve the claimed end goal of new particle synthesis/quantum substrate synthesis.
(G) The existence of working examples: The Specification does not provide working examples.
(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.
Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–3 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 1 recites a “synthesis” and a “method” but fails to provide any steps for achieving the desired result of “Neutronium Quantum Substrates and ‘Red Matter’ Quantum Substrates.”
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis,” “Neutronium Quantum Substrates,” and “‘Red Matter’ Quantum Substrates” in claims 1, 2, and 3 are indefinite because they are not known in the art, and the specification does not clearly redefine them.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis, and the claim also recites “especially the synthesis of Neutronium Quantum Substrates and ‘Red Matter’ Quantum Substrates” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(c).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
In claim 2, it is unclear what the subject of “being a charge of 0 is.” What has a charge of 0? It is further unclear what the subject of “…being the anti-matter version of the particle” is.
Regarding claim 2, the term "version" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "version"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(III).
Claim 2 recites “the anti-matter version” and “the quarks” and “the particle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
In claim 3, it is unclear what the subject of “being a charge of +1 or -1 is.” What has a charge of 0? It is further unclear what the subject(s) of “…being the matter or anti-matter version of the quarks with opposite charge in the anti-matter version of the particle” is/are.
Claim 3 recites “the matter or anti-matter version” and “the quarks” and “the particle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the term "version" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "version"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(III).
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Forum” (Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis, published in an online science forum in 2020 and 20222).
Regarding claim 1, Forum discloses the synthesis of any man made particle (“making synthetic composite particles,” page 1) by the method of Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis (“Synthetic Particle Confinement Synthesis,” page 1) especially the synthesis of Neutronium Quantum Substrates and “Red Matter” Quantum Substrates (“’Red Matter’ Quantum Substrate,” page 2).
Regarding claim 3, Forum discloses the Synthesis of “Red Matter” Quantum Substrates (“’Red Matter’ Quantum Substrate,” page 2) which are constructed of a Top quark and anti-Top quark along with two Up quarks and a Down quark being a charge of +1 or -1 being the matter or anti-matter version of the quarks with opposite charge in the anti-matter version of the particle (see the figure on page 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 All references to the Specification herein refer to the published application.
2 See the attached 5-page NPL reference.
Prosecution Insights