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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 6 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 6 is a process “to conserve electromagnetic signal1,” whereas the examined inventions were a “process to encourage fusion2 of subatomic quarks” and a “process to terraform3 atmosphere.” See original, examined claims 1-3 from 12/03/2023. The process of transforming a non-earth planet to be more earth-like (original claim 3) or nuclear fusion (original claims 1-2) and the process to conserve an electromagnetic signal are distinct processes. There is no widespread acceptance of any overlap between these processes.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 4-5 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments cure the claim objections, which are herein withdrawn.
Applicant’s replacement Drawings cure the Drawing objection, as best as presently understood by Examiner given the indefinite nature of the subject matter. The Drawing objection is herein withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 11/28/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons detailed below.
Applicant argues that the National Ignition Facility (NIF) has achieved fusion ignition, and therefore the instant invention is operable and enabled. In response:
Examiner notes that NIF is the largest operational fusion system in the US to date that operates at extreme temperatures. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target. However, the laser system itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced2. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production—as stated by experts in the fusion community4,5.
The subject matter overlap between Applicants’ invention and the technology of NIF is negligible, and so even if NIF makes advances in nuclear fusion, this has no bearing on the operability or enablement of Applicants’ invention.
Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive, and the 112(a) and 101 rejections are MAINTAINED.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 4-5 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, the 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 nuclear fusion.
Claims 4 and 5 recite:
“Process to stimulate nuclear fusion...”
In the background of the invention of and the brief summary, see Specification (page 1), Applicant asserts that the asserted and specified utility of the present invention is “in the field of fusion, electromagnetism” and specifically “electromagnetic radiation that encourages the fusion of subatomic quarks into a desired element…in an orbit.”
However, Applicant has failed to make any reasonable case for “encourage[ing] the fusion of subatomic quarks into a desired element” in outer space.
The Specification describes fusion activity as manipulating electron shell configurations (page 1). The Specification further describes a “heliospheric and galactic current sheet” (page 4) among other mechanisms not recognized in the art as being remotely related to “encourage[ing] fusion of subatomic quarks into desired elements” as cited above. The Specification variously describes nuclear fusion in terms of chemical reactions6 rather than nuclear reactions7. Applicant appears to be projecting chemical reactions onto nuclear reactions. The difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction is the following:
“Nuclear reactions involve a change in an atom's nucleus, usually producing a different element. Chemical reactions, on the other hand, involve only a rearrangement of electrons and do not involve changes in the nuclei8.”
In an atom, the nucleus includes neutrons and protons, whereas the electrons are located outside the nucleus. Therefore, a reaction that involves protons or neutrons is a nuclear reaction. A reaction confined to the electron shells is a chemical reaction. The Specification repeatedly describes electrons within shells/orbitals, e.g., see pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific has replicated or built upon Applicant’s discovery of a “new” style of nuclear fusion. 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 generate useful products or energy 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 system 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 4-5 are further 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. Applicant alleges the production of nuclear fusion in subatomic quarks in outer space. No laboratory on Earth has yet achieved nuclear fusion ignition for practical energy production, let alone by manipulating space quarks.
The Examiner has provided 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.
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 4-5 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, 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 4-5 are further rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) 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 4-5 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 believes they have produced an operative system for achieving nuclear fusion for useful energy production.
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 to provide the world’s first-ever nuclear fusion in space for practical use are extremely broad and inadequately detailed. The alleged outcomes of such a process cannot be reasonably predicted or measured.
See MPEP § 2164.08.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of nuclear fusion as a non-negligible source of useful energy; as such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies in the hitherto unsuccessful field of commercial nuclear fusion reactors.
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work; nor does the theory behind the claimed mechanism appear to enjoy scientific consensus.
See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in the art is a skilled artisan who understands research-level nuclear fusion reactors but who cannot yet build or operate one that would be considered useful, e.g., for net electricity production, outside the realm of research.
See MPEP § 2164.05(b).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Thermonuclear fusion devices have failed to make serious advances towards practical applications after more than half a century of research. The predicted successes are only predictable in that they require another decade or more of study.
See MPEP § 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant’s claimed system utilizes theorized phenomena which are speculative at best; no specific working examples are provided.
See MPEP § 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: No working example is provided.
See MPEP § 2164.02.
(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 unreasonable because 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. See MPEP § 2164.06.
Claims 4 and 5 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 4 recites the following limitations which are new matter:
“an array of lasers” and “where lasers direct …” — no lasers nor an array thereof can be found in the original disclosure
a planet and “its satellite” (recited twice) — no satellite can be found in the original disclosure
“projecting circularly polarized electromagnetic waves from the array” — no support can be found in the original disclosure for electromagnetic projection from the array (of lasers); instead, the Specification discloses a relationship between the electromagnetic waves and the array that conflicts with the above-claimed recitation, which is that the electromagnetic projection is itself the “array,” e.g., see Spec. at the bottom of page 4: “The array of circularly polarized electromagnetic waves …”.
New claim 5 recites the following limitations which are new matter:
“an array of lasers” and “where lasers direct …” — no lasers nor an array thereof can be found in the original disclosure
“projecting circularly polarized electromagnetic waves from the array” — no support can be found in the original disclosure for electromagnetic projection from the array (of lasers); instead, the Specification discloses a relationship between the electromagnetic waves and the array that conflicts with the above-claimed recitation, which is that the electromagnetic projection is itself the “array,” e.g., see Spec. at mid-page 3: “The Lagrange-like array of electromagnetic waves, circularly or linearly polarized …”.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
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 4-5 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, e.g., the persistent use of unnecessary commas.
The below rejections are Examiner’s best attempt at identifying the most obvious indefiniteness issues. Examiner requests Applicant’s assistance in identifying and fixing other indefiniteness issues. The items identified below are not comprehensive.
Claim 4 recites a step (d) of “projecting circularly polarized electromagnetic waves from the [laser] array, where lasers project one or two circularly polarized waves of electromagnetic radiation, at each of the ten target locations that resemble two sets of merged Lagrange Points.” Examiner cannot extract any meaningful structure or function from this limitation. What is performing the “projecting” action? How can an electromagnetic wave be “circularly polarized”? Is it moving in a circular direction? Is it also polarized? In what manner are “circularly” and “polarized” intended to be combined for some possible extra effect different from either on their own?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “lasers” in claim 4. How do the lasers of step (e) relate to the lasers of step (a)?
There is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 4 in step (e) for “one or two circularly polarized waves of electromagnetic radiation” in the claim. How does this limitation relate to the “circularly polarized electromagnetic waves” of step (d)?
The term “near” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. The ordinary skilled artisan would not be able to reasonably estimate upper and lower bounds for a distance considered “near” the recited target mass/region. Additionally, because there are multiple lasers, which one(s) of the lasers are “near” the target mass/region?
The term “resemble” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resemble” 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. A group of ordinary skilled artisans would be unlikely to agree on whether or not specific target locations “resemble[d] two sets of merged Lagrange Points.” Additionally, since there are ten target locations, in what manner are they supposed to be viewed such that they resemble only two sets of Points?
Claim 5 recites a step (d) of “projecting circularly polarized electromagnetic waves from the [laser] array, where lasers project one or two circularly polarized waves of electromagnetic radiation, at each of the ten target locations that resemble two sets of merged Lagrange Points.” Examiner cannot extract any meaningful structure or function from this limitation. What is performing the “projecting” action? How can an electromagnetic wave be “circularly polarized”? Is it moving in a circular direction? Is it also polarized? In what manner are “circularly” and “polarized” intended to be combined for some possible extra effect different from either on their own?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “lasers” in claim 5. How do the lasers of step (e) relate to the lasers of step (a)?
There is insufficient antecedent basis in claim 5 step (e) for “one or two circularly polarized waves of electromagnetic radiation” in the claim. How does this limitation relate to the “circularly polarized electromagnetic waves” of step (d)?
In claim 5, it is unclear what is the subject of the step (c) “…which surround the primary target mass or region”—the nine target locations, the four additional target locations, or all of the above?
The term “near” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” 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. The ordinary skilled artisan would not be able to reasonably estimate upper and lower bounds for a distance considered “near” the recited target mass/region. Additionally, because there are multiple lasers, which one(s) of the lasers are “near” the target mass/region?
In claim 5, it is unclear what the difference/overlap is between the “ten target locations” and the “primary target mass or region.”
The term “resemble” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resemble” 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. A group of ordinary skilled artisans would be unlikely to agree on whether or not specific target locations “resemble[d] two sets of merged Lagrange Points.” Additionally, since there are nine target locations, in what manner are they supposed to be viewed such that they resemble only two sets of Points?
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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Due to the considerable indefiniteness of the claims, there is a great deal of speculation required by the Examiner to interpret said claims. Therefore, no art rejections are being presented in this action. See MPEP 2173.06(II). As stated in /n re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. In this case, because no reasonable interpretation can be made about the structural or functional arrangement of the claimed features, any assumption on the part of the Examiner would be extraordinarily and inappropriately speculative.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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.
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 “electromagnetic signal: Electromagnetic (EM) signals are energy-carrying, wave-like disturbances consisting of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that travel through space at the speed of light (3x108 m/s). They include radio waves, microwaves, light, and X-rays, forming the electromagnetic spectrum, and are generated by accelerating charged particles.” “Electromagnetic signal.” Oxford Languages, accessed 17 Mar 2026.
<google.com/search?q=define+electromagnetic+signal>
2 “fusion reaction: A reaction in which at least one heavier, more stable nucleus is produced from two lighter, less stable nuclei. Reactions of this type are responsible for enormous release of energy, such as the energy given off by stars.” “Fusion reaction.” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Glossary, accessed 17 Mar 2026.
<nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/fusion-reaction>
3 “terraform: (especially in science fiction) transform (a planet) so as to resemble the earth, especially so that it can support human life.” “Terraform.” Oxford Languages, accessed 17 Mar 2026. <google.com/search?q=define+
terraform>
4 “However, although the fusion reactions produced more than 3 MJ of energy — more than was delivered to the target — NIF’s lasers consumed 322 MJ of energy in the process.” Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
5 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
6 e.g., Spec. at page 2: “[T]he circular electric field induces electron spin, and may represent a central target ....”
7 “Nuclear reactions involve a change in an atom's nucleus, usually producing a different element. Chemical reactions, on the other hand, involve only a rearrangement of electrons and do not involve changes in the nuclei.” <chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Fundamentals_of_General_Organic_and_Biological_Chemistry_(LibreTexts)/11%3A_Nuclear_Chemistry/11.01%3A_Nuclear_Reactions>. Last accessed May 31, 2025.
8 Nuclear Reactions. https://chem.libretexts.org/@go/page/86251