DETAILED ACTION
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
1. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are pending in this application and examined herein.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
3. Applicant argues hat the office action dated 03/23/26 “characterizes the invention as relating to ‘cold fusion’ and relies on references directed to high-energy thermonuclear fusion systems. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization does not reflect the claimed subject matter.” Applicant’s arguments are belied by the specification as filed, which states:
[0002] The present invention relates to an apparatus, its use and a method for generating thermal energy, in particular by a low-energy nuclear reaction.
[0005] A distinction is typically made between three methods of generating excess heat:
Electrodes (usually made of Ni or Pd) are charged with high concentrations of hydrogen (protium or deuterium) by means of electrolysis;
Metals (e.g. metal powder) are heated in hydrogen environment at approx. 450-1700 K;
pulsed plasma discharges.
[0009] The present invention relates to the second method (heating metals in a hydrogen environment).
4. Thus, the specification itself categorizes the invention as cold fusion.
5. Further, the examiner describes thermonuclear fusion technology to establish the known conditions necessary to cause nuclear fusion in manmade device. Applicant’s device does not utilize any of the known, established, and conventional ways the cause fusion. Applicant’s arguments admit this. Thus, the invention is cold fusion.
6. Regarding Berlinguette, Applicant states “this study does not investigate material composition changes or system configurations as claimed in the present invention.” This is incorrect. Berlinguette is primarily concerned with replicating cold fusion. Berlinguette explicitly tried to replicate claims of “excess heat” in “metallic powders” (p. 48: “Calorimetry under extreme conditions”). The extensive study “detected no convincing evidence of excess heat so far.” Thus, Berlinguette is directly related to patentability of the present invention because it expressly establishes that the utility of the claimed invention would be viewed as incredible by the skilled artisan.
7. Regarding the NPL authored by the inventor, the examiner notes that the Journal of Condensed Matter nuclear Science is a publication specifically created to “focus on the various anomalies in metal deuterides and hydrides.”1 Articles published in the journal do not undergo peer review.2 This is not a mainstream scientific journal recognized as legitimate by nuclear physicists. Furthermore, the results purportedly achieved by the invention are not credible in view of Berlinguette’s more rigorous experimentation on the same issue. On the issue of experiments allegedly demonstrating cold fusion Lindstrom, quoting Richard Feynman, states:
Anomalous observations may indeed point to new phenomena, but simple explanations are usually most probable. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself-and you are the easiest person to fool" (R. P. Feynman, 1974 Caltech commencement address).
Science is a communal activity whose practitioners build upon each others' work. To exploit the literature we must understand its limitations, which is possible only if the authors of publications understand the uncertainties in their measurements and conclusions, and make us, the readers, understand them in the same way.
8. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a) are maintained because Applicant’s response does not provide sufficient evidence to outweigh the conclusion that 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 perform work as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims.
9. Applicants amendments to the specification and the claims have introduced new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, as explained below.
Specification
10. The amendment filed 05/19/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant has unreasonably broadened the disclosure by replacing text directed to “Generating Heat Energy Using Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction” and “obtaining thermal energy by means of a low-energy nuclear reaction” to “Generating Energy via Hydrogen-Metal Interactions” and “A hydrogen-metal energy system for treating metallic material.” As filed, the specification is solely directed to cold nuclear fusion and the amendments are an attempt to obfuscate the original subject matter of the disclosure.
11. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 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 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)).
14. Here, the claims are directed to “a device for treating metallic reaction materials in a hydrogen-containing atmosphere,” “a method of recovering or generating thermal energy in a hydrogen metal system,” and “a method for inducing nuclear transmutation in a metallic material under a hydrogen atmosphere by low-energy nuclear reaction” (see claims 1, 14, and 15). The specification (citations here refer to US 2025/0022619 A1) states ([0001]): “The present invention relates to an apparatus, its use and a method for generating thermal energy, in particular by a low-energy nuclear reaction.”
15. Applicant explicitly identifies the invention as cold fusion ([0003-0009]), and states that the reaction temperature is 500-600 K/ 300 °C / “above 430 K” ([0051], [0056]), claims 14 and 15). A comprehensive study of cold fusion published in 2019 found “no evidence of anomalous effects claimed by proponents of cold fusion that cannot otherwise be explained prosaically.”3
16. Thus, the invention purportedly achieves nuclear fusion and energy output without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion.4 For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core.5 Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more.6 The claimed method when read in light of the Specification, by contrast, operates as significantly lower temperatures than would be needed for nuclear fusion to occur (see previous paragraph).
17. Applicant envisages that the claimed and disclosed inventions “have a very wide field of application ([0058]). Specifically:
The apparatus and the process can be scaled as desired, from micro-scale to small units to modularly constructed large-scale plants, from private to commercial to large-scale industrial applications. The apparatus concept and the process are used, for example, in building technology for heating and air-conditioning buildings, for transport with vehicle and ship drives, for process heat and for electricity generation, and even for seawater desalination and drinking water treatment ([0058]).
18. The specification as filed provides no experimental results and does not establish that nuclear fusion reactions were achieved nor that a net positive energy output was observed. Additionally, there is no description of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above.
19. Other publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear, cold, or hybrid—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted by Dylla,7 as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)—aspired to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.”
20. Further according to the official ITER webpage:8
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to yield in its plasma a ten-fold return on power (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not convert the heating power it produces as electricity, but — as the first of all magnetic confinement fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain across the plasma (crossing the threshold of Q≥1) — it will prepare the way for the machines that can.”
21. There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (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 produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production.9
22. When the most advanced thermonuclear fusion reactors in the world have yet to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims to (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion device/method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a method achieves a net energy gain would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
23. As is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures, such as those present on the sun. Georgia State University10 explains:
“The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107–108 K.”
24. Applicant has failed to sufficiently disclose how the claimed inventions accomplish nuclear fusion and generate energy. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion and energy generation. For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
25. The claimed inventions—a device and method for generating energy via cold fusion—is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”).26. The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
27. 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 perform work 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 method 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.
28. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 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. 29. The production of net energy from a nuclear fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (specification at [0001], [0058]). Applicant’s invention is claimed as operating at temperatures many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion ([0051], [0056]), claims 14 and 15). 30. The Examiner has provided a preponderance of 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
31. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
32. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 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.
33. 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.”
34. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 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.
35. Further, claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are further rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claims, as amended, are directed to new matter. The amendments to the preambles of the claims unreasonably broaden the claims beyond the subject matter in the disclosure as originally filed. Further, the amendments to claims 2, 5, and 6 recite subject matter not present in the disclosure as filed. The newly added subject matter not supported by the disclosure is: “a dome,” “vacuum coupling clamps,” “whereint he reaction material is constantan or a combination of materials” and “wherein the reaction material has micro structured surface.”
36. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are further 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.
37. 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.
38. 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).
39. 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 claim to “treating metallic material,” “recovering or generating thermal energy” and “inducing nuclear transmutation” by merely subjecting a metal and a gas to an alternating magnetic field (claims 1, 14, 15)) is extremely broad and necessarily abandons modern nuclear physics, such that the outcomes of the recited method cannot be reasonably predicted and 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 cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science. See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it. See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The claims are directed to cold fusion. Those generally skilled in the art would appreciate the obstacles and repeated failure in achieving/ sustaining nuclear fusion when the Lawson criterion is not satisfied—e.g., extreme global temperature. Those skilled in the art would also understand that cold or low-energy nuclear fusion, from which the instant invention is seemingly derived, lies within the realm of fringe science and offends generally accepted physics. See MPEP § 2164.05(b).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data. See MPEP § 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant's underlying theory is aspirational at best, and no independent experimental results or other persuasive supporting evidence is provided for the record. See MPEP § 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: There is no evidence the invention has been tested, reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support. 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.
40. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
41. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
42. Claims 1-12, 14, and 15 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform to current U.S. practice. The claims lack punctuation and proper grammar, making the structure and steps delineated by the claims unclear.
43. Claim 1 introduces “metallic reaction materials” in the preamble and subsequently refers to “a metallic reaction material,” “different metallic reaction materials,” and “the reaction material.” Accordingly, the latter two recitations lack proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether there are multiple metallic reaction materials, and if so, which one is received in the tubular reactor, and whether the “reaction material” is one of the previously introduced metallic reaction materials.
44. Regarding claim 1, the functional recitation “configured to receive a metallic reaction material and inductively heat the reaction material” is expressed in terms of actions the reactor performs. There is no clear delineation as to the particular structure a generic reactor must possess in order to make it “configured” for such purposes. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Similarly, the recitation “closure configured to permit introduction and exchange of different metallic reaction materials” is indefinite. Additionally, this recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “different reaction materials” in light of the claim’s previous introduction of “a metallic reaction material.” One would be unable to determine whether the claimed reactor contains a single reaction material, a plurality of “different” reaction materials. Moreover, what is meant by the term “introduction”?
45. Finally regarding claim 1, the final recitation “wherein the reaction material can be inductively heated by applying an alternating voltage to the inductor” is purely functional and is directed to a method step of using the claimed apparatus. It is not clear what particular structure is delineated by this recitation. The recitation is further unclear because the claim previously introduces a metallic reaction material and a reaction gas.
47. Regarding claims 5-7, the claims are indefinite because they fail to adequately distinguish the structure required of the reaction material. At a minimum, it is unclear if the claims are referring to any one of the various metallic reaction materials introduced in claim 1 or to the reaction gas. Furthermore, what does “formed as a spiral wrap” mean? Wrapped around what? The recitation “has an annular shape comprising one annular solid or several stacked annular solids” because the term “several” is subjective. Regarding claim 6, the recitations are unclear and cannot be interpreted in light of the specification because the specification contains no corresponding description of the structure associated with the limitations. The recitations porous and roughened are relative, and one would not be able to determine whether a given surface is porous or roughened because there is no reference point for comparison. It is not clear what a galvanic coating is, and it is not clear what is meant by doped in this context. Similar, the terms ‘free-flowing, bound, or compacted” are relative and cannot be adequately interpreted without a reference point for comparison. It is also cleat what is meant by formed as a hollow cylinder. How can a free-flowing material be formed as a cylinder? An annular gap between what? Where are the carrier rings? What is a carrier ring?
48. Regarding claim 8, the term “several” is indefinite because it is subjective.
49. Regarding claim 9, it is unclear how an “inductor for generating an alternating magnetic field” as introduced in claim 1 can also be “configured to serve as an inductor and for heat dissipation.” One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would not be able to understand the metes and bounds of the structure required to achieve both limitations. Is the coil tube the same as the previously introduced coiled tube?
50. Regarding claim 9, the recitation “dynamic insulation” is unclear and the structure required to achieve the limitations of both claims 8 and 9 is unclear. Claim 8 introduces a heat transfer fluid flowing through the coil tube whereas in claim 9, the heat transfer fluid is flowing in the dynamic insulation. So is the dynamic insulation the inductor?
51. Regarding claims 11 and 12, the functional limitations recited with respect to the “induction generator” and “control device” fail to adequate define the structure of these terms. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what structure is necessary to provide to achieve the limitations of claims 11 and 12.
52. Regarding claims 14 and 15, the recitations “high vacuum,” “low pressure,” and “elevated temperature” are relative and subjective making them indefinite. Furthermore, the recitation “dynamic insulation” is indefinite because one would be unable to determine the structure associated therewith. Further regarding claim 15, the term “rapid” is relative and indefinite. The recitation “under conditions effective to induce nuclear transmutation” is indefinite because one has no means by which to determine what such conditions are.
53. Any claim not specifically addressed above is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112 because it depends on a rejected claim.
35 USC § 102/103
54. It should be noted, as stated in MPEP 2173.06, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §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.” Therefore, no art rejections have been made.
55. The prior art Mizuno and Piantelli cited on the attached PRO-892 appear to be the closest prior art. Piantelli discloses a reactor with a metallic reaction material and a reaction gas that is heated by generating a magnetic field in the inductor. Mizuno discloses a similar reactor having a closure flange providing for introduction of materials and sensors into the reactor space and for evacuating the reactor with a vacuum pump.
Interviews
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.
Finality
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/SHARON M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
1 https://jcmns.org/about
2 https://jcmns.org/for-authors
3 Berlinguette, C., et al. "Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion." Nature. Vol. 570 (2019), pp. 45-51.
4 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited 03/18/26).
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
8 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>
9 Achieving Fusion Ignition; Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: what does it mean?; National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal
10 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
Prosecution Insights