DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Entered Replies were filed 25 July 2026 and 26 March 2026. All amendments therein have been entered. Claims 1 and 3 are pending.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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
The phrase “such as positrons” remains unclear. All of the features which would constitute “such as positrons” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether the phrase encompasses each of: subatomic particles (e.g., particles smaller than an atom that make up its internal structure); elementary particles (e.g., leptons); antimatter (e.g., matter composed of antiparticles); radiation with mass (e.g., emissions from unstable, radioactive decaying atoms that release physical particles rather than pure energy waves); and cosmic rays (e.g., particles traveling through space or secondary particles produced in atmospheric showers). Thus, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3
The phrase “energy making a Positron Heated CNO Superconducting Tokomak Fusion Reactor” is unclear. For example, it is unclear how energy alone (without any physical structure) can make a fusion reactor.
Review
The claims are indefinite. The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 20 March 2026 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The reasons for rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 20 March 2026 are herein incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, which would transform non-isotope hydrogen into energy and various particles.
Objection to the Abstract
No amended Abstract has been entered. Thus, the reasons for objection set forth in the Office Action dated 20 March 2026 remain, and are herein incorporated by reference. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Objection to the Title
No amended Title has been entered. The reasons for objection set forth in the Office Action dated 20 March 2026 remain, and are herein incorporated by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
This is the evidence that is device is "Useful" And "Operable" Under Patent Law with peer-reviewed scientific research as evidence that agrees with the Carbon Fusion Reactor and Uses Thereof application. This evidence to show that the device is operable and useful under MEP 2107.01.
The Examiner notes that Applicant has not pointed out where the filed references provide evidence that the recited invention is operable and useful. Nor do said references provide this evidence. None of the references are directed to a human-made nuclear fusion reactor that relies on the Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycle (CNO) for transforming non-isotope hydrogen into energy and various particles. At best the Ferro reference discusses CNO, but it is in relation to stellar plasmas.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Prosecution on the merits is closed. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights