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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-27, drawn to an apparatus.
Group II, claims 28-51, drawn to a method.
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Upon election of Group I, the species are as follows:
the fusion reaction of claim 6
the fusion reaction of claim 7
the fusion reaction of claim 8
the fusion reaction of claim 9
Further upon election of Group I, the species are as follows:
the target of claims 14-16
the target reaction of claims 18-20
the target reaction of claims 21-23
Upon election of Group II, the species are as follows:
the fusion reaction of claim 33
the fusion reaction of claim 34
the fusion reaction of claim 35
the fusion reaction of claim 36
Further upon election of Group II, the species are as follows:
the target of claims 41-44
the target reaction of claims 45-47
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: 1 and 28.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a plasma focus system with a neutron source and a remnant ion beam, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Sadeghi, cited below in the 102 section.
The species lack unity of invention because they do not share the same or corresponding technical feature because they are mutually exclusive.
During a conversation with Paul G. Johnson on 6/2/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I and species for claims 6 and 14-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-9, 18-23, and 28-51 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 4-5 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 4 recites “the second energy range encompasses a maximum in the beam-target fusion cross-section between the beam ions and the target medium.” This limitation does not make sense because it equates an energy range with a cross-section, which are not comparable parameters. A fusion cross-section is a probability, while the second energy range was defined in keV (see claim 3). Therefore, it is unclear how the second energy range can “encompass” a maximum fusion probability.
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
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 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 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 14-15, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sadeghi (High efficiency focus neutron generator, cited via Applicant’s IDS 3/16/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Sadeghi discloses a plasma focus system for neutron production, the plasma focus system comprising: a plasma focus device (fig. 2) configured to emit a remnant1 ion beam comprising beam ions (“High number of produced ions in plasma focus device after acceleration phase move upward from the anode top of plasma focus device,” page 4, left column); and a neutron source (top of fig. 2) comprising an enclosure having a cavity formed therein for receiving a target medium (“gas inlet,” fig. 2), the enclosure comprising a beam entrance port (labeled as 1 in Fig. 3a) configured to allow at least part of the remnant ion beam to enter and travel inside the cavity (see movement of deuterium ions in Figs. 6a-b), wherein, as the remnant ion beam travels along the cavity, the beam ions interact with the target medium and undergo fusion collisions (“collision rate,” Fig. 6 caption; c; “the number of collisions between deuteron ions and deuterium gas atoms were increased remarkably well,” abstract), which produce neutrons (“neutron production,” page 5, see the paragraph starting with “Figure 6(b)”) and reduce a number of the beam ions (id.), and non-fusion collisions (id.), which reduce an energy of the beam ions (collisions necessarily reduce the energy of the colliding species).
Regarding claim 2, Examiner notes that this claim is essentially a desired-result/intended-use type claim, and the operation of Sadeghi’s fusion device is capable of achieving the desired results. Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses as the remnant ion beam travels inside the cavity, the non-fusion collisions (e.g., elastic scattering and inelastic scattering, bottom left of page 2) gradually reduce the energy of the beam ions from a first energy range to a second energy range (these non-fusion collisions necessarily reduce the energies, and therefore the ranges thereof, of the colliding species; for example, if you throw a basketball into a wall, the energy of the basketball is reduced), and wherein a beam-target fusion cross-section (fusion cross sections, bottom left of page 2) between the beam ions (deuterons) and the target medium (deuterium gas) increases from within the first energy range to within the second energy range (the probability of fusion indeed increases at the lower energies), thereby causing the fusion collisions to produce the neutrons with a gradually increasing neutron yield (“Utilizing magnetic lenses will cause increasing of number of collisions, thus by increasing collisions number, neutron production is increased,” page 5, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that this claim is essentially a desired-result/intended-use type claim, and the operation of Sadeghi’s fusion device is capable of achieving the desired results. Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the second energy range encompasses a maximum in the beam-target fusion cross-section between the beam ions and the target medium (as best understood by Examiner, this limitation is disclosed by Sadeghi because Sadeghi discloses the higher probability of fusion reactions due to increased collisions in an overlapping energy range of 100-700 keV, e.g., see cross section discussion on page 2, 100-700 keV, page 4, right column, and “Utilizing magnetic lenses will cause increasing of number of collisions, thus by increasing collisions number, neutron production is increased,” page 5, right column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the beam ions comprise deuterons and tritons, the target medium comprises a mixture of deuterium and tritium, and the neutrons are produced by the D-T fusion reaction (“D-D and D-T reactions,” page 7 under #5; “collisions between deuteron ions and deuterium gas,” abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Examiner notes that this claim is essentially a desired-result/intended-use type claim, and the operation of Sadeghi’s fusion device is capable of achieving the desired results. Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the plasma focus device (fig. 2) further emits primary neutrons, and wherein the neutrons produced by the neutron source correspond to secondary neutrons (fig. 2 is a plasma focus device, and will therefore necessarily have both primary and secondary neutron production).
Regarding claim 11, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the enclosure extends between a first enclosure end, proximal to the plasma focus device (this would be adjacent where the smaller cylinder in fig. 2 abuts the larger cylinder below), and a second enclosure end distal from the plasma focus device (gas inlet end), and wherein the beam entrance port is provided at the first enclosure end (as shown in fig. 2, beam entrance port is adjacent where the smaller cylinder in fig. 2 abuts the larger cylinder below).
Regarding claim 12, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the beam entrance port comprises a beam entrance window (the window is the annulus where the larger and smaller cylinders meet, see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the target medium is a target gas (“deuterium gas,” abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the target gas comprises deuterium, tritium, or a mixture of deuterium and tritium (“D-D and D-T reactions,” page 7 under #5; “collisions between deuteron ions and deuterium gas,” abstract).
Regarding claim 24, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the plasma focus device (fig. 2) comprises: an electrode assembly comprising: an inner electrode (this is the innermost electrode shown in the lower half of fig. 2) extending along a pinch axis between a discharge end and a focus end; and an outer electrode (the outer electrodes form a circle around the interior electrode, fig. 2) surrounding the inner electrode and defining therebetween a plasma channel configured to receive a process gas (inner and outer electrodes are spaced apart, fig. 2); and a power supply unit (e.g., “a 4.5 KJ plasma focus device with the bank of capacitance 40 μF and voltage 15 kV,” page 1, bottom right) configured to apply a discharge driving signal to the inner electrode (interior electrode in lower half of fig. 2) and the outer electrode (ring of outer electrodes, lower half of fig. 2), 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 the remnant ion beam is emitted (this is how all plasma focus devices work, including Sadeghi’s).
Regarding claim 25, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the enclosure extends along an enclosure axis that is coaxial with respect to the pinch axis (generally vertical axis, as shown especially in Fig. 6b).
Regarding claim 26, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the plasma focus device comprises a vacuum chamber (“lower pressure vacuum chamber,” fig. 2) configured to contain the process gas therein and to house at least part of the enclosure, including the beam entrance port (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the process gas comprises deuterium, tritium, or a mixture of deuterium and tritium (“D-D and D-T reactions,” page 7 under #5; “collisions between deuteron ions and deuterium gas,” abstract).
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 3, 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi in view of Lee (From Beam-target to Thermonuclear Fusion in the Dense Plasma Focus Pinch: Energy throughput scaling).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 16, and 17, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses wherein the second energy range extends from about 1 keV to about 200 keV (100 to 700 keV, page 4, right column).
Sadeghi does not disclose what the initial energy was, nor the numerical value for the maximum cross section energy, the gas pressure or the length.
Lee does. Lee is also in the art area of plasma focus pinch devices (title) and teaches
the first energy range extends from about 1 MeV to about 20 MeV (2.5 MeV, page 48), a maximum in the beam-target fusion cross-section between the beam ions and the target medium at a beam ion energy of 115 keV (“optimum value … 115 keV, page 23), a gas pressure between about 2-6 atm (“5 atm,” page 49; “10 atm D-T gas,” page 48), and a length from about 50 cm to about 2 m (“1 m long Target tube,” page 48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized these numerical values and ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadeghi in view of Lewis (US 4,304,627).
Regarding claim 13, Sadeghi anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and further discloses the beam entrance port, as cited above, but does not explicitly disclose a shutter.
Lewis does. Lewis is in the same art area of fusion devices (abstract) and teaches a beam entrance port having a beam shutter (42, 43, fig. 2), wherein the beam shutter is movable between a closed shutter position, wherein the beam is prevented from entering the cavity, and an open shutter position, wherein the beam is allowed to enter inside the cavity (“a laser beam at the pellet location within the cylinder, and shutter means operable to open a passage for entry of said laser beam momentarily to explode the pellet, and thereafter closing the passage,” claim 14).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, utilize Lewis’ shutter within the device of Sadeghi in order to “secure the chamber [] against leakage from the D-T reaction” while “permitting entry” when desired, as well as sealing off the passage to prevent desirable species from escaping, as explained by Lewis in col. 4, ll. 40-47.
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 as defined in the published application at ¶ 121.
Prosecution Insights