DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application is examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 recites “the device is coupled with an electrical power generation system”. However, an electrical power generation system is outside the scope of the claimed orbital confinement fusion device. Thus, claim 20 does not further structurally limit the subject matter of said apparatus device of claim 1.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jouanneau (US 2006/0088138).
Claim 1
Jouanneau (cited via IDS) teaches an orbital confinement fusion device comprising a cathodic inner electrode defining a longitudinal axis of the device. The inner electrode having an emitter material. For example, a cathode (75) inner electrode has a longitudinal axis made of an excitable material (Figure 10b; paragraph [0140]). The device also comprises an anodic outer electrode concentric with the longitudinal axis. The outer electrode defines a chamber between the inner electrode and the outer electrode. For example, a concentric anode (111) surrounds the cathode (75) and has a space between the anode (111) and the cathode (75) (Figures 10b, 11; paragraph [0140]). The device further comprises a plurality of magnetic field generators disposed in a coaxial arrangement relative to the longitudinal axis. These magnetic field generators are configured to form a magnetic field parallel to the longitudinal axis in the chamber. For example, a magnetic member (101) with its coil (103) (together constitutes a plurality of magnetic field generators) surrounds the longitudinal axis, and generates a magnetic field parallel to the longitudinal axis (Figures 10a, 10b, 11; paragraphs [0133, 0140-0141]). Jouanneau employs a high voltage power source.
Claim 2
Jouanneau teaches that the inner and outer electrodes are solids of revolution, symmetric about the longitudinal axis. They are shaped to form a substantially logarithmic electrostatic field in the chamber when energized. For example, the cathode (75) may be a sphere or cylinder, and the anode (111) may be concentrically surrounding the cathode (Figures 10a-10b; paragraphs [0133-01341]).
Claim 3
Jouanneau teaches that the inner electrode is characterized by an aspect ratio greater than one along the longitudinal axis. Furthermore, the outer electrode has a length along the longitudinal axis greater than a largest diameter of the inner electrode. For example, the cathode (75) may be cylindrical with an aspect ratio greater than one and the anode (111) has a length greater than the diameter of the cathode as the anode surrounds the cathode (Figures 10b, 11; paragraph [0140]).
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 10,269,458).
Claim 1
Wong (cited via IDS) teaches a cathodic inner electrode (120) having an emitter material, an anodic outer electrode (110) defining a chamber, and a plurality of magnetic field generators (616, 626, 658, 1150, 1350, 1750) configured to form a magnetic field (146) in the manner recited. For example, note Wong at claims 1, 16, and 18. Wong also employs a high voltage power source (e.g., col. 42, lines 18-24).
Claim 2
Wong teaches that the inner and outer electrodes are solids of revolution. The anode concentrically surrounds the cathode
Claim 5
Wong teaches trapping electrons in an orbital path about the inner electrode within the chamber. For example, note the electron rich region in Wong at claim 16.
Claim 6
Wong teaches a magnetic field strength within the range of 0.01 T - 10 T (e.g., col. 32, lines 5-9).
Claims 7-8
Wong teaches permanent magnets and electromagnets (e.g., col. 7, lines 28-40; col. 25, lines 34-37).
Claims 9-11
Wong teaches dielectric insulators and electrically isolating a high voltage power source (e.g., col. 41, lines 15-23; col. 55, lines 1-2).
Claims 12-13
Wong teaches that the outer electrode defines an aperture (e.g., the adjacent space interior thereof).
Claim 14
Wong teaches that the outer electrode defines a port (e.g., the adjacent space interior thereof).
Claim 15
Wong teaches injecting electrons into the chamber when the inner electrode is energized. For example, note the electron rich region in Wong at claim 18.
Claim 16
Wong teaches that the emitter material is a thermionic emitter material (e.g., col. 43, lines 59-64).
Claim 17
Wong teaches generating electrical energy from a plurality of charged particles (e.g., col. 13, lines 39-48; col. 58, lines 28-41).
Claim 18
Wong teaches a fluid conduit (e.g., col. 9, lines 59-61; col. 37, lines 13-16).
Claim 19
Wong teaches the device size (e.g., col. 25, lines 8-11
Claim 20
Wong teaches using the device to produce electricity (e.g., col. 63, lines 55-57).
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wong (US 2015/0380113).
Claims 1-3
Wong teaches a cathodic inner electrode (202), an anodic outer electrode (204) defining a chamber, an emitter material (205, 206), and a plurality of magnetic field generators (201) configured to form a magnetic field (146). For example, note Wong at [0093] and Figure 2. Wong also employs a high voltage power source.
Claims 5-8
Wong teaches magnetic field strength [0093] and magnets [0086].
Claim 18
Wong teaches a fluid conduit [0101].
Claims 19-20
Wong teaches centimeters [0112] and a power generation system [0145, 0160].
Double Patenting
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,948,697 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the recited invention includes characteristics which are substantially met in the claims of the Patent. The pending claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the Patent.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
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