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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A1 and Species B1 in the reply filed on 04/04/26 is acknowledged.
2. Claims 6, 10, and 27-44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species or invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
3. Accordingly, claims 1-44 are pending with claims 6, 10 and 27-44 withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-26 are examined herein.
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-6, 7-9, and 11-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
5. Regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein the tapered tip is configured to increase a speed…sufficiently for….” is purely functional. That is, it describes a result allegedly achieved by the tapered tip without reciting the particular structure the tapered tip must possess to achieve the limitation.
According to MPEP 2173.05(g), a claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is.” A functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. A functional limitation is often used in association with an element, ingredient, or step of a process to define a particular capability or purpose that is served by the recited element, ingredient or step. The use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. Without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim.
A skilled artisan has no means by which to determine when a plasma focus system possessing a tapered tip on an inner electrode satisfies the claim limitation.
6. Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” 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.
7. Regarding claims 14-21, the recitations “wherein the power supply unit is configured to apply the discharge driving signal…” merely describe the intended purpose or effect of applying the discharge driving signal. These recitations place no clear boundaries on the structure of the power supply unit and consequently, a skilled artisan has no means by which to determine when a power supply unit satisfies the claim limitations.
Claim Interpretation
8. The claims recite limitations that are either method steps of using the claimed apparatus or statements of results desired or achieved by the claimed structure. These limitations, like statements of intended use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the prior art reference(s) as long as the structure of the cited reference is capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2111-2115). As stated in MPEP 2114(II): “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, the portions of the reference(s) relied upon in the below rejections have been cited to aid in the review of the rejections. While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that 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, 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluhler US 2022/0124903 in view of Talukdar, N., et al. "Comparative study of neutron emission from a plasma focus device using two different anode shapes." Physics of Plasmas 23.5 (2016).
10. Regarding claim 1, Fluhler discloses a plasma focus system for neutron production ([0002], [0005]), comprising (see Fig. 16B and [0155-6]): an electrode assembly comprising: an inner electrode (1514) extending along a pinch axis between a discharge end (left) and a focus end (right) the inner electrode from the discharge end to the focus end; and an outer electrode (1612) surrounding the inner electrode and defining therebetween a plasma channel configured to receive a process gas comprising neutronic fusion fuel ([0012], [0075], [0082]); and a power supply unit ([0060], [0222]) configured to apply a discharge driving signal to the inner electrode and the outer electrode, wherein applying the discharge driving signal causes the process gas to be ionized into a plasma current sheath at the discharge end and the plasma current sheath to flow along the plasma channel and reach the focus end where the plasma current sheath collapses toward the pinch axis to form a plasma pinch from which fusion neutrons are generated with a neutron yield having a beam-target yield component and a thermonuclear yield component ([0072-77]), and wherein the tapered tip is configured to increase a speed of the plasma current sheath flowing therealong sufficiently for the plasma pinch to reach a pinch temperature at which the thermonuclear yield component exceeds the beam-target yield component ([0148]).
Although Fluhler does not explicitly disclose its inner electrode having a tapered tip, Fluhler suggests that shape of its inner electrode can be varied to “provide an optimum performance of the DFP device ([0146]). Talukdar teaches a plasma focus system for neutron production (Abs), comprising an inner electrode extending along a pinch axis between a discharge end and a focus end, the inner electrode terminating in a tapered tip at the focus end (see Figs. 1 and 2). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the electrode shape taught by Talukdar in the device of Fluhler because Fluhler suggests such a modification ([0146]) and because Talukdar teaches that such an electrode configuration results in a higher energy neutron spectrum (IV. Conclusion).
11. Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Talukdar further teaches a tapering angle of 17° (using trigonometry calculations based on the dimensions shown in Fig. 2). Both Fluhler and Talukdar are silent as to the ratio of the first radius of the tapered anode to the second radius. However, Fluhler establishes that these dimensions are result-effective in influencing the “terminal plasma sheath velocity” (see [0146-0148]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have been motivated to optimize these dimensions of the inner electrode in the combination of Fluhler with Talukdar, for the predictable purpose of “higher…performance” ([0148]).
12. Regarding claims 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Talukdar further teaches an inner electrode having a first radius of 10.5 mm, a tip linearly tapering from the first radius to the second radius, a longitudinal extent of 3.4 cm, a ratio of a longitudinal extent of the tapered tip to a longitudinal extent of the inner electrode of 0.29, and a ratio of a longitudinal extent of the inner electrode to a diameter of the inner electrode at the discharge end of 5.5. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the electrode shape taught by Talukdar in the device of Fluhler for the reasons stated above.
13. Regarding claim 11, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system wherein the tapered tip has a hollow interior configured to allow the plasma pinch to extend at least partially thereinside (see Fig. 16B and [0171]).
14. Regarding claim 12, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system wherein the power supply unit comprises a pulsed-DC power supply comprising a capacitor bank and a switch ([0060], [0222]).
15. Regarding claim 22, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system wherein the electrode assembly comprises an electrical insulator (16) interposed between the inner electrode and the outer electrode at the discharge end (see Fig. 16B and [0062]).
16. Regarding claims 23 and 24, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system further comprising a vacuum chamber housing at least part of the electrode assembly and configured to contain the process gas therein ([0061]) and a plasma focus system wherein the outer electrode forms part of the vacuum chamber ([0075]).
17. Regarding claim 25, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system further comprising a process gas supply unit configured to supply the process gas inside the plasma channel ([0075]).
18. Regarding claim 26, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler does not explicitly state the identity of its “Fusion fuels” ([0012], [0082]). Talukdar teaches a plasma focus system comprising deuterium (see p. 4). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing would have found it obvious to employ the deuterium fuel taught by Talukdar in the system of Fluhler because deuterium is the most abundant fusion fuel (see “DOE Explains…Deuterium-Tritium Fusion Fuel” attached hereto).
19. Claims 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fluhler US 2022/0124903 in view of Talukdar, N., et al. "Comparative study of neutron emission from a plasma focus device using two different anode shapes." Physics of Plasmas 23.5 (2016) in further view of Shumlak et al., US 2020/0058411 and Fissenko et al., US 2016/0027533.
20. Regarding claim 13, the modification of Fluhler as taught by Talukdar makes claim 1 obvious. Fluhler further discloses a plasma focus system wherein the power supply unit is configured to apply the discharge driving signal as a voltage pulse having a peak magnitude ranging from 10-200 KV ([0023]). Fluhler is silent as to the other recited characteristics of the voltage pulse delivered by its power supply unit. However, the power supply unit is capable of delivering voltage pulses at selected strength and duration to the electrode assembly of its plasma focus device.
Shumlak teaches a plasma focus system having a power supply unit configured to apply a voltage pulse of 30 kV at a discharge duration of 50 µs ([0106]), while Fissenko teaches a plasma focus system having a power supply unit configured to apply a voltage pulse of 40 kV at 1 MA ([0004]). Accordingly, the power supply parameters of a plasma focus system are generally known in the art, and a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to select operation parameters of the power supply unit of Fluhler to achieve desired plasma characteristics.
21. Regarding claims 14-21, the power supply unit of Fluhler is capable of achieving the desired results recited in the claims because it disclose a power supply unit capable of delivering voltage pulses at selected strength and duration to the electrode assembly of tis plasma focus device.
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.
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
