DETAILED ACTION
Elections
Applicant’s election of Invention I and species A (Figure 1) without traverse in the Reply filed 18 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-53 are pending. The elected Invention encompasses claims 1-32. The subject matter of claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 22-32 is not shown in Figure 1. Thus, the subject matter of the elected Invention/species only encompass claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, and 15-21. As a result, claims 5, 7-9, 14, and 22-53 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected Invention/species. The restriction/species requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4, 6, 10-13, and 15-21 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 an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1
The phrases “optionally, a third outer region” and “optionally, a fourth outer region” are unclear. For example, it is unclear whether a “third outer region” and a “fourth outer region” are being positively recited. As best understood, they are not.
The phrase “a solid characterizing . . . the third outer region and the fourth outer region” is unclear. Since a “third outer region” and a “fourth outer region” are not positively recited, it is unclear how further description thereof further limits the device structure.
It is unclear what is meant by “solid”. Use of fuel in the form of a solid (e.g., ice) is conventional in the art, and for ease of handling is expected to be used. It is unclear whether the mentioned “sold” remains a solid at room temperature.
Claim 2
Claim 1 already recites two fuel material regions. Thus, it is unclear how claim 2 further limits the device structure of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6
It is unclear whether DTLi is a mixture. For example, it is unclear whether the lithium is mixed with the DT, bound with the DT, or whether the lithium can be (radially) located outside of the DT. Since the claim can be interpreted differently, it is prima facie indefinite.
Claims 3-4 and 6
It is unclear whether “composed of” means “consisting of” or something else.
Claim 6
This claim appears to be identical to claim 3.
Claim 11
It is unclear what constitutes “near”. The dividing boundary between “near” and “not near” is unknown and unclear.
Claim 12
The phrase “characterized by more than one and less than 10” is unclear. The feature (e.g., distance) which is “more than one and less than 10” is unclear. Since words appear to be missing, the claim appears to be incomplete.
Claim 13
It is unclear what constitutes the term “high Z value”. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Likewise, it is unclear what constitutes “other high Z value material”.
Claim 15
The method phrases “is irradiated” and “is compressed” are unclear. The subject matter is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claims 16-17
The method phrase “is irradiated” is unclear. The subject matter is defined by an intended result to be achieved instead of by positively recited structural features which cause the result. The recited function does not follow from recited structure. The claim appears to be incomplete for omitting structural cooperative relationships of elements which allow for the intended result.
Claim 18
It is unclear what constitutes “a small laser spot size”. The dividing boundary between “small” and “not small” is unknown and unclear.
Also, as best understood, if a femtosecond laser light source is selected in claim 17 then there is no picosecond laser light source. Thus, is unclear how claim 18 further limits the subject matter of claim 17, especially since claim 17 does not require a picosecond laser light source. Claim 18 lacks an indication that a picosecond laser light source was selected. It is unclear whether claim 18 should be interpreted as additionally including the pre-wording “wherein the target device is irradiated using a picosecond laser light source that outputs a picosecond pulse”.
Claims 15-19
Claim 1 is directed to a “fuel target device”. Structure for irradiating (or compressing) the target device is outside the scope of the target device. Thus, it is unclear how claims 15-17 further limit the structure of the target device.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 15-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (US 2020/0263981) in combination with Zhang ("Growth of a solid DT ice and β-layering in the GDP capsule", Fusion Engineering and Design 172 (2021): 112831).
Claims 1-2
Hunter teaches a fuel target device comprising a center region (202) comprising a first fuel material, and a second outer region (206) comprising a second fuel material. The fuel regions (202, 206) may be filled with different types of fusion fuel, such as: deuterium and tritium (DT), pure deuterium, lithium deuteride, lithium tritide, or any other fusion fuel or combination of fuels [0043].
It is uncertain whether Hunter employs the fuel in the form of a solid. Nevertheless, it is conventional in the art to employ fuel in the form of a solid (e.g., ice), especially for ease of handling. For example, note Zhang. Thus, modification of Hunter to have employed the fuel in the form of a solid, as suggested by Zhang, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 15-19
Hunter’s device is structurally capable of being used with a laser light source.
Claim 21
Hunter discloses a cylindrical shape [0042].
Claims 1-2, 4, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (WO 2011/146113) in combination with Zhang.
Claims 1-2
Hunter teaches a fuel target device comprising a center region (412) comprising a first fuel material, and a second outer region (40; 4028) comprising a second fuel material. The fuel regions (412, 408) may be filled with different types of fusion fuel. For example, Hunter implies that any configuration of fuel can be used (e.g. page 14, second paragraph).
It is uncertain whether Hunter employs the fuel in the form of a solid. Nevertheless, it is conventional in the art to employ fuel in the form of a solid (e.g., ice), especially for ease of handling. For example, note Zhang. Thus, modification of Hunter to have employed the fuel in the form of a solid, as suggested by Zhang, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claim 4
Hunter’s second fuel material region can comprise boron (402).
Claims 15-19
Hunter’s target device is structurally capable of being used with a laser light source.
Claims 20- 21
Hunter discloses a sphere shape and a cylindrical shape. The target device has a diameter of 1 mm - 9 mm (e.g., page 14, last paragraph; page 16, fourth paragraph).
Claims 1-3, 6, and 15-21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barroso ("A numerical solution of the time-dependent neutron transport equation using the characteristic method. Applications to ICF and to hybrid fission-fusion systems", arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.02861 (2017)) in combination with Zhang.
Barroso teaches a fuel target device comprising a center region comprising a first fuel material (LiDT), and a second outer region comprising a second fuel material (LiD; Be). Particularly note Figure 15.
It is uncertain whether Barroso employs the fuel in the form of a solid. Nevertheless, it is conventional in the art to employ fuel in the form of a solid (e.g., ice), especially for ease of handling. For example, note Zhang. Thus, modification of Barroso to have employed the fuel in the form of a solid, as suggested by Zhang, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonardoni ("First measurement of the 10B (α, n) 13N reaction in an inertial confinement fusion implosion at the National Ignition Facility: Initial steps toward the development of a radiochemistry mix diagnostic", Physics of Plasmas 29, no. 5 (2022)) in combination with Zhang.
Lonardoni teaches a fuel target device comprising a center region comprising a first fuel material (DT), and a second outer region comprising a second fuel material (pB; B; Be). Particularly note Figure 2.
It is uncertain whether Lonardoni employs the fuel in the form of a solid. Nevertheless, it is conventional in the art to employ fuel in the form of a solid (e.g., ice), especially for ease of handling. For example, note Zhang. Thus, modification of Lonardoni to have employed the fuel in the form of a solid, as suggested by Zhang, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (WO 2011/146113) in combination with Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barroso.
Barroso teaches a fuel target device comprising a center region comprising a first fuel material (LiDT) and a second outer region comprising a second fuel material (LiD; Be). Particularly note Figure 15.
Hunter indicates that any configuration of fuel, shells, and other structures can be used (e.g., page 14, second paragraph). Thus, modification of Hunter to have employed a first fuel material of LiDT, as suggested by Barroso, to meet a particular reactor design, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that a fuel target can be implemented with various elements and arrangements, necessarily amounting to certain design characteristics obviously more favorable to use of a certain elements and arrangements in light of the specific fusion reactor design. Furthermore, Hunter indicates that any configuration of fuel can be used (e.g., page 14, second paragraph). Thus, modification of Hunter to have employed a first fuel material of LiDT, as suggested by Barroso, to meet a particular reactor design, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (WO 2011/146113) in combination with Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stephens ("Implosion hydrodynamics of fast ignition targets", Physics of Plasmas 12, no. 5 (2005).
Stephens shows (e.g., Figure 1) that it is conventional in the art to use a cone-shaped groove or metal cone that is coated with gold (Au) or lead (Pb), which allows a laser to ignite the fuel.
Particularly note Hunter at Figure 6 and page 20, second paragraph; and at Figure 8A and page 23, first paragraph. Modification of Hunter to have employed a conventional cone to allow for fuel ignition, as suggested by Stephens, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The result of the modification would have been predictable to the skilled artisan.
Objection to the Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it describes the prior art, as evidenced by the above prior art rejections. 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 unclear what constitutes a “low ignition temperature”.
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
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.
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 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