DETAILED ACTION
Election of Invention
Claims 1-3 are pending. Applicant’s election of Invention I without traverse in the Reply filed 20 February 2026 is acknowledged. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1 and 3. Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
As best understood, the claims appear to be directed to a method, even though the claim does not mention “method”. It is unclear what active steps are actually being recited. The claim lacks positive active steps, which usually start with a word ending in “ing” (e.g., using, operating, etc.).
It is unclear whether the claims are directed to: (1) using energy that was provided by a Nuclear Fusion Reactor; (2) operating a Nuclear Fusion Reactor with a CNO cycle to generate energy and various particles; or (3) something else. At present, the claim wording can be broadly interpreted as any “usage” of energy which resulted from a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, without requiring a CNO cycle. That is, the claim can be interpreted as usage of energy, regardless of how the energy was generated.
The phrase “Any usage of a Nuclear Fusion Reactor” is unclear. Furthermore, what constitutes “Any usage” is unknown, and appears to be include infinite uses. However, the Specification does not describe all of the uses that the claim scope encompasses. That is, the specification does not provide support for the claim scope. Thus, the (narrow) specification does not enable the full scope of the (broad) claim.
The phrase “such as positrons” is unclear. All of the features which would constitute “such as positrons” is unclear. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3
It is unclear what constitutes a “Carbon Fusion Reactor”. The structure required to qualify as a “Carbon Fusion Reactor” is unknown.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) 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.
The Examiner asserts that there is no credible, peer-reviewed published evidence to support the existence of the alleged human-made nuclear fusion reactor that relies on the Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycle (CNO) for transforming non-isotope hydrogen into energy and various particles, especially positrons. Neither Applicant’s claims nor Specification provide sufficient information on how to make and use a nuclear fusion reactor that relies on using the CNO cycle for transforming non-isotope hydrogen into energy. With the needed parameters and boundary conditions (e.g., operating temperature, operating plasma, densities, dimensions, impurities, material composition, material structure, etc.) that are absent from the Specification, one skilled in the art would not be able to repeatedly reproduce (or understand) the alleged energy generation by a nuclear fusion reactor that employs a CNO cycle for energy generation.
Background
The Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle in a nuclear fusion reactor (or more accurately, massive stars) is a catalytic process that converts hydrogen into helium using carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen as intermediaries, releasing vast amounts of energy, unlike human-made nuclear fusion reactors that use deuterium-tritium (D-T) reactions. In the CNO cycle, C-12 captures protons, transforming through N and O isotopes before eventually releasing a helium nucleus (alpha particle) and regenerating the original C-12, acting as a cosmic engine for hot, massive stars. While it is a primary energy source in stars more massive than our Sun, it is not used in modern nuclear fusion reactors (such as Tokamaks) for human-made energy production. The Six-Stage CNO cycle comprises:
Carbon-12 captures a proton to become Nitrogen-13.
12C + 1H → 13N + γ + 1.95 MeV
Nitrogen-13 undergoes beta decay to become Carbon-13.
13N → 13C + e+ + νe + 1.20 MeV
Carbon-13 captures a second proton to become Nitrogen-14.
13C + 1H → 14N + γ + 7.54 MeV
Nitrogen-14 captures a third proton to become Oxygen-15.
14N + 1H → 15O + γ + 7.35 MeV 1
Oxygen-15 undergoes beta decay to become Nitrogen-15.
15O → 15N + e+ + νe + 1.73 MeV
Nitrogen-15 captures a fourth proton, releasing a Helium-4 nucleus and regenerating the original Carbon-12.
15N + 1H → 12C + 4He + 4.96 MeV
The two emitted positrons annihilate with two ambient electrons to produce an additional 2.04 MeV. Thus, the total energy released in one CNO cycle is approximately 26.73 MeV.
Stellar Fusion (which uses the CNO cycle) powers massive stars where core temperatures exceed 15-17 million Kelvin, using C, N, and O as catalysts for H-to-He conversion. In contrast, human-made fusion reactors (which use the D-T reaction) aim for practical energy on Earth (e.g., ITER) using deuterium and tritium, a different, more direct fusion path to create helium and neutrons, and do not rely on CNO.
There are numerous reasons why the CNO cycle is not used in human-made (terrestrial) nuclear fusion reactors:
Timescale: The CNO cycle relies on weak force interactions (beta decay), which take minutes to occur—far too slow for a power plant requiring high energy density. Some of the CNO decay steps have half-lives of nearly 10 minutes. In a fusion power plant, reactions must occur in microseconds in order to maintain plasma stability and efficient energy output.
Power Density: Despite the high energy of stars, their power density is very low. On a per-volume basis, the energy output of a star using the CNO cycle is roughly equivalent to a compost heap. Stars only generate massive power because of their immense size. A human-made reactor using the CNO cycle could not be massive enough to produce a small amount of useful energy. Rather, even if a human-made reactor using the CNO cycle were somehow possible, it would have a power density comparable to a compost heap. The CNO cycle produces energy in stars due to their immense gravitational scale.
Temperature Requirements: To overcome the electrostatic repulsion (Coulomb barrier) of carbon (6 protons) and nitrogen (7 protons), the CNO cycle requires temperatures and pressures significantly higher than those found in stars like our Sun. The CNO cycle requires temperatures exceeding 15–17 million Kelvin and immense pressures only found in the cores of massive stars. Human-made nuclear fusion reactors struggle to maintain even lower temperatures. Human-made reactors utilize D-T fusion because it has a much higher reaction rate at attainable lower temperatures than a CNO cycle. The CNO cycle requires temperatures and pressures significantly higher than those needed for D-T fusion — conditions currently beyond human engineering for a sustained power-generating environment.
Lack of Gravitational Confinement: Massive stars use their immense gravity to confine the high-pressure plasma needed for the CNO cycle. Human-made nuclear fusion reactors do not have this immense gravity. Rather, human-made fusion reactors must use magnetic confinement (Tokamaks) or inertial confinement (lasers) to confine plasma, neither of which can currently sustain the conditions required for heavy-element cycles like CNO.
Sequential Complexity: The CNO cycle requires a precise sequence of six nuclear reactions to complete one cycle and regenerate the carbon catalyst. Managing these complex stages in a controlled plasma is currently beyond human engineering capabilities.
There is no human-made nuclear fusion reactor that uses the Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle for energy production. All human-made nuclear fusion reactors utilize Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) or other light-element fuel cycles. Because a human-made nuclear fusion reactor does not have the capability of employing the temperatures and pressures found in massive stars, a CNO cycle therein would require an operating temperature significantly higher than current human-made (D-T) nuclear fusion reactors. In comparison, a needed 170 million °C is over ten times the temperature of Sun's core.
Even if human-made reactors could meet 170 million °C, it would still not be enough for the CNO cycle to operate on Earth. The human-made reactor would still need to compensate for the lack of immense gravitational pressure found in CNO stars. To compensate for the lack of immense gravitational pressure found in massive stars, a theoretical human-made CNO reactor on Earth would likely need to maintain temperatures in the range of several hundred million to over 1 billion °Celsius. That is, since on Earth we cannot match stellar pressures of 265 billion atmospheres, we would need temperatures exceeding 1 billion °C to achieve a useful CNO reaction rate. It is noted that 1 billion °Celsius is approximately 1 billion degrees Kelvin. Sustaining a billion °Celsius temperature would exceed the limits of currently known magnetic confinement and material science. For these many reasons, it is currently impossible to build a self-sustaining human-made nuclear fusion reactor that uses the CNO cycle for useful energy production. This patent application claims an invention that contradicts known scientific principles. Thus, the recited invention is deemed non-enabling.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperative are the same as the reasons set forth in the above 35 USC § 112(a) rejection. An invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by Applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of patent law (MPEP 2107.01).
Additionally, it is well established that when, like here, the utility of the invention is based upon allegations that border on the incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community, sufficient substantiating evidence of operability must be submitted by Applicant. Note In re Houghton, 167 U.S.P.Q. 687 (CCPA1970); In re Ferens, 163 U.S.P.Q. 609 (CCPA 1969); Puharich v. Brenner, 162 U.S.P.Q. 136 (CA DC 1969); In re Pottier, 152 U.S.P.Q. 407 (CCPA 1967); In re Ruskin, 148 U.S. P.Q. 221 (CCPA 1966); In re Citron, 139 U.S.P.Q. 516 (CCPA 1963); and In re Novak, 134 U.S.P.Q. 335 (CCPA 1962). One of ordinary skill in the art would doubt the operability of the recited invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 each of: Li; Borexino Collaboration; Przybilla; and Bethe.
Each of these references teach that a massive star constitutes a nuclear fusion reactor that uses the Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycle.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains description (e.g., sodium 22) not directed to the elected invention. An Abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the recited invention pertains. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
The Title is objected to because it is directed to known subject matter. For example, it reads on known stars, which each constitute a carbon fusion reactor.
Review / Comment
For reasons discussed above, the recited invention is deemed non-enabling and inoperative. Also, an alleged human-made nuclear fusion reactor that uses the Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycle is shown by Gascoigne (GB2628974A), filed on 9 April 2023.
Additional Comment
The inventor may have 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, a lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. Thus, the inventor may want 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.
However, for Applicant’s benefit, a listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicant 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.
General Contact Information
Applicants seeking status information regarding an application should check Patent Center on the Office website at www.uspto.gov/PatentCenter. Alternatively, the requester may contact the Application Assistance Unit (AAU). See MPEP § 1730, subsection VI.C. See MPEP § 102 for additional information on status information. For a USPTO Customer Service Representative call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
Contact Information
Examiner Daniel Wasil can be reached at (571) 272-4654, on Monday-Thursday from 10:00-4:00 EST. Supervisor Jack Keith (SPE) can be reached at (571) 272-6878.
/DANIEL WASIL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Reg. No. 45,303
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646