DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election of Species A1/B1/C1 without traverse in the Reply filed 18 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-21 are pending. The election encompasses claims 7-12, 14-17, and 19-21. Claims 13 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. The species restriction requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 7-12, 14-17, and 19-21 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.
Multiple Claims
It is unclear what constitutes the phrase “high-energy laser pulses”. The dividing boundary between “high-energy” and non-high-energy is unknown and unclear. As best understood, the phrase 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.
Claim 7
The phrase “in particular hydrogen atoms” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “hydrogen atoms” are being positively recited. It is unclear how said phrase further limits the recited method.
The phrase “the local laser field” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the wavelength” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the applied laser field” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the amplification is achieved by plasmonic metal or dielectric nanoparticles resonant to the wavelength” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “nanoparticles” is associated with: (1) only dielectric; (2) both plasmonic metal and dielectric; or (3) something else. It is unclear whether “resonant” is associated with: (1) only dielectric nanoparticles; (2) both plasmonic metal and dielectric nanoparticles; or (3) something else. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “the amplification is achieved by plasmonic metal nanoparticles or plasmonic dielectric nanoparticles, where the nanoparticles resonate at the wavelength”.
Claim 9
The phrase “wherein producing comprising” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “producing” in said phrase refers to the producing step in claim 7 or to a new step of producing.
Claim 12
The phrase “wherein producing comprises” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “producing” in said phrase refers to the producing step in claim 7 or to a new step of producing. Also note claim 13.
The phrase “producing isotopes using laser intensities” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “producing isotopes by using laser intensities”.
Claim 14
The phrase “the local laser field” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the wavelength” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The phrase “the applied laser field” lacks proper antecedent basis.
At paragraph [0012] in the (substitute) Specification (filed 9 May 2024), it is implied that a novel (and thus required) feature of the invention is the use of metal nanoparticles. However, claim 14 lacks this feature. Thus, it appears that claim 14 fails to set forth the subject matter which an inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15
The term “plamonic” is unclear. It is unclear whether other words (which would make the claim clear) are missing in the claim.
The phrase “the plamonic nanoparticles” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 17
The phrase “wherein producing comprises” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “producing” in said phrase refers to the producing step in claim 14 or to a new step of producing. Also note claim 18.
Claim 21
The phrase “wherein producing comprises” is unclear. For example, it is unclear whether “producing” in said phrase refers to the producing step in claim 14 or to a new step of producing.
The phrase “producing isotopes using laser intensities” is unclear. It is unclear whether said phrase should be interpreted as “producing isotopes by using laser intensities”.
Review
The claims do not allow the public to be sufficiently informed of what would constitute infringement. Since claims can be interpreted differently, they are prima facie indefinite. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based upon its dependency.
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 7-10, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kroo (HU P1700278 A1).
Kroo teaches a method of producing isotopes by using laser pulses assisted by plasmonic amplification. Kroo uses a power density of at least 1013 w/cm2 and metal (e.g., gold; spherical) nanoparticles resonant to a laser field wavelength between 600 and 1100 nm. Particularly note Kroo at claims 1, 3, and 7.
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 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo (HU P1700278 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 14 above.
Tuning of the laser wavelength to the plasmon resonance is suggested by Kroo (e.g., page 7, line 31 - page 8, line 11). Thus, modification of Kroo to have had the plasmon resonance wavelength of the nanoparticles be equal to the wavelength of the applied laser field, to have enhanced efficient operation, 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 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kroo (HU P1700278 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 14 above, and further in view of Labaune (US10217538).
Labaune (cited via IDS) shows that it is well known in the art to produce isotopes by using laser intensities exceeding 1015 W/cm2. Modification of Kroo to have used stronger laser intensities exceeding 1015 W/cm2 in producing the isotopes, as suggested by Labaune, 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 is objected to because it includes an unclear long rambling sentence. It is unclear where one feature ends and another feature begins. It is suggested that the long rambling sentence be broken into several shorter clear sentences.
The Abstract is also objected to because it includes unclear wording as noted above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (e.g., “high-energy laser pulses”, “in particular hydrogen nuclei”, etc.).
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. For example, note the unclear wording “high-energy laser pulses” previously discussed. The following Title is presented for consideration:
“Method of producing isotopes by using laser pulses assisted by plasmonic amplification”.
Additional Comment
Note the pertinent EPO Office Action dated 25 September 2025 in corresponding application EP 22850663.
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered related to Applicant's disclosure.
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).
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