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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4–8, 12–18, and 28 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing objection, which is withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the amendments overcome the previous rejections, and an updated prior art search has been performed, the results of which are below.
Response to Arguments and filed Affidavit
Examiner is persuaded that the invention, as claimed, requires neither cold fusion nor net-energy-producing hot fusion. Applicant’s invention is an inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) device that is used to produce neutrons and other energetic particles. This is a legitimate and accepted utility for IEC devices1. IEC devices are known to produce neutrons and heat, but, like all currently existing fusion devices, more energy is input than is output. Applicant’s disclosed speculation that electron screening/lattice confinement fusion (LCF) phenomena may be involved2 is moot. The claims do not require electron screening or LCF. In other words, even if electron screening and LCF are not occurring, Applicant’s claimed invention is still directed towards an IEC device with a legitimate utility of producing energetic particles such as neutrons, which are useful for medical purposes among other things. The 101 and 112(a) rejections are withdrawn. The pending 112(b) rejection, because it was related to the 112(a) rejections, is also withdrawn.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because some of the claims recite “The particle producing apparatus of claim 1,” while others recite “A particular producing apparatus…”. All claims dependent on claim 1, directly or indirectly, should recite “the.”
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 6–8, 12, and 16–18 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 6 recites the limitation "the first enriched surface is formed of transition metals.” It is unclear if this is intended to be plural or singular. The Specification at page 4, lines 12-14, only states that a single metal is used. For the purposes of examination, Examiner assumes “metals” was intended to be “metal.”
Claim 6 recites “the first enriched surface is formed of transition metals.” However, this conflicts with parent claim 1, which recited that the first enriched surface is deuterium and/or tritium, which are hydrogen species and not metals. Examiner assumes for the purposes of examination that Applicant intended to recite that the anode structure is a metal, not the enriched portion.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the electrode.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites that the enriched surface is formed integrally with the electrode, but this conflicts with claim 1’s recitation that the surface was applied using electrolysis. Electrolysis is not typically considered an “integral” formation between two structures, but rather the skilled artisan would assume an electrolytically applied layer to a metal electrode would form a coating on said electrode. Thus, it is unclear if Applicant considers an electrolytic coating to be integral, or if claim 12 conflicts with claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “fluid conducting structures.” This limitation can be interpreted in two different ways, which makes it indefinite: (a) structures that conduct fluid, and (b) conducting structures that are fluid. It is unclear which interpretation is correct. If (a) is correct, the limitation could be changed to “fluid-conducting structures.”
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 102 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4–5, 13–16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer3 (DE 2411667 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer discloses a particle producing apparatus (see the figure), wherein the particle producing apparatus is an inertial electrostatic confinement fusion reactor (“pulsed deuterium-tritium fusion reactor in which a low-frequency alternating current is passed,” abstract), comprising: a vessel (see the enclosure of the figure); an anode structure (3); a cathode structure (4), wherein the anode structure and cathode structure are positioned within the vessel; and a first enriched surface (the base of anode 3 is coated with 264, which is electrolytically applied DT; “By electrolysis, the space in front of the anode was marked with DT,” page 2, 2nd paragraph; “DT-rich anode,” page 2, 6th paragraph), the first enriched surface being enriched with fusible isotope species (“DT-rich anode,” page 2, 6th paragraph) wherein the first enriched surface is at least a part of a surface of the anode structure (DT coating 26 is part of anode 3, see above citations) or a surface of the cathode structure; wherein the enriched surface is enriched with deuterium and/or tritium by electrolysis (as cited above) with a deuterated and/or tritiated water solution containing conductive salts for electrolysis5 (see electrolysis cited above); and wherein the apparatus is configured to contain an ion and neutral gas mixture and, in operation, to cause the ion and natural gas mixture to form a plasma (“D-T fusion in the resulting plasma,” abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the vessel has a substantially constant cross-section coaxially along a length of the cathode structure (see the figure).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the anode structure (3) is formed of a plurality of anode units (anode 3 also includes at least wall 2 and structure 22).
Regarding claims 13–15, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the apparatus is configured such that, in operation, the apparatus produces nucleons, including neutrons and protons (“D-D fusion and “D-T fusion,” top of page 3; Examiner notes that D-D fusion produces protons, tritium [which has one proton and two neutrons], and helium-3 [also has protons and neutrons], and D-T fusion produces neutrons and helium [which has protons and neutrons]).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the apparatus further comprises fluid conducting structures (sheath 24 which encloses the channel with arrow 30, see zoomed-in portion of fig. 1) proximate to the anode structure (3).
Regarding claim 28, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the vessel (fig. 1) comprises a central axis (e.g., along electrodes 3,4), the anode and cathode structures are positioned such that the anode structure (3) and cathode structure (4) are substantially coaxial with the vessel (as shown in fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Mizuno (US 2016/0155518).
Regarding claims 6–8, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first enriched surface is formed of a metal (“plutonium-beryllium alloy,” page 4, 3rd paragraph) but does not explicitly suggest a transition metal with an atomic number greater than or equal to 40 wherein the element is one of Zirconium, Palladium, or Erbium.
Mizuno does teach this. Mizuno is also in the art area of nuclear fusion reactors and teaches using the transition metal with a Z>40 of palladium (fig. 2: anode may be 25 or 26, ¶ 47, and may be palladium, ¶ 43, ¶ 54). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have utilized the palladium material suggested by Mizuno for the anode of Fischer, since Mizuno states that palladium is a suitable “hydrogen storage metal,” which is also what Fischer’s anode is being used for. Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer.
Regarding claim 12, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the first enriched surface (26) is formed with the electrode (3) that it forms at least part of the surface of (see the zoomed-in portion of fig. 1). Fischer’s enriched D-T 26 on the surface of anode 3 was applied electrolytically, as cited above in response to claim 1. As noted in the above 112(b) rejection, it is unclear if Applicant finds an electrolytically applied coating to form an “integral” structure. However, Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the D-T layer integrally with the electrode, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 17–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Sved (US 2008/0089460).
Regarding claims 17-18, Fischer anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein the fluid conducting structures are composed of a metal (the skilled artisan understands that the type of shading using for sheath 24 indicates a metal, usually steel) but does not explicitly suggest a corrugated alloy.
Sved does. Sved is also in the art area of fusion reactors and teaches (fig. 1) a structure (3) adjacent an anode (5) wherein the structure is an alloy comprising corrugations along a length of a fluid conducting structure (“stainless steel corrugated front wall,” ¶ 88; “the anode wall is constructed so as to provide a conduit for fluids, ¶ 43). The skilled artisan would have been motivated, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the corrugated steel of Sved adjacent the anode of Fischer in order to, as explained by Sved (¶¶ 86–87), “ensure an increase of the low angle of incidence of the high energy electrons that stream toward the anode in the local radial direction … [to achieve] the greatest ionization efficiency … [and] to ensure that the residual energy is optimal for interaction of the protons with the designated target nuclei.”
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 Spec. at page 32 states that ion energies of a “few 100 keV” are utilized, which is an energy that makes it credible, in the context of this invention, that some fusion reactions may be occurring and producing neutrons.
2 e.g., Spec. at page 4: “…the first enriched surface is electron screened. This electron screening may encourage lattice confinement fusion.”
3 There is a very similar but non-identical US version US 4,182,651 with better figures and reference numeral labels. However, the US version was not as specific as the German version for the recited components. In the US version, the anode is 6 [fig. 1] with a D-T enriched coating 10 [fig. 2], and the cathode is 7. Please see attached 21-page version of DE2411667A1 with Examiner highlights. If the highlights don’t show up in the file, please email Examiner for the PDF (lily.garner@uspto.gov).
4 Examiner could not find an English translation saying the D-T rich is label 26, but this is in the German version attached to this Office Action on page 10 of the original German publication (highlighted by Examiner): “26 D-T-angereicherte Zone vor der Anode” which means 26 = D-T enriched anode zone
5 This limitation is treated under MPEP 2113 as a product-by-process claim. In this case, after reviewing the instant Specification (e.g., Spec. at pg. 15), Examiner finds no difference regarding the manner in which the claimed electrolysis was performed regarding the final outcome of the product compared to the manner in which Fischer performs electrolysis.
Prosecution Insights