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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 14-15, 25, 28, 32, 40, 47-48, 51-53, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Per MPEP 2107.01 (II), an invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of the patent law. See, e.g., Newman v.Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581, 11 USPQ2d 1340, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Harwood, 390 F.2d 985, 989, 156 USPQ 673, 676 (CCPA 1968). See also In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“the PTO is entitled to reject an application for insufficient proof when a device by its nature occasions reasonable skepticism as to its operativeness under §101”).
Per MPEP 2107.01(IV), to properly reject a claimed invention under 35 USC 101, the Office must (A) make a prima facie showing that the claimed invention lacks utility, and (B) provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for factual assumptions relied upon in establishing the prima facie showing. The prima facie showing must contain the following elements:
(A) An explanation that clearly sets forth the reasoning used in concluding that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible;
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion; and
(C) An evaluation of all relevant evidence of record, including utilities taught in the closest prior art.
Reasoning that the asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible
Per MPEP 2111, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
Regarding utility, “[a]s a matter of Patent Office practice, a specification which contains a disclosure of utility which corresponds in scope to the subject matter sought to be patented must be taken as sufficient to satisfy the utility requirement of §101 for the entire claimed subject matter unless there is a reason for one skilled in the art to question the objective truth of the statement of utility or its scope” In re Langer, 503 F.2d at 1391, 183 USPQ at 297. Per MPEP 2107.02 (iii)(A), to overcome the presumption of truth that an assertion of utility by the applicant enjoys, the Office must establish that it is more likely than not that one of ordinary skill in the art would doubt (i.e., “question”) the truth of the statement of utility….This means that if the applicant has presented facts that support the reasoning used in asserting a utility, Office personnel must present countervailing facts and reasoning sufficient to establish that a person of ordinary skill would not believe the applicant’s assertion of utility. In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The initial evidentiary standard used during evaluation of this question is a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., the totality of facts and reasoning suggest that it is more likely than not that the statement of the applicant is false).
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites:
“a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products wherein energy from second plasma produces radiation;… g) a power adapter configured to receive the radiation transmitted through the transparent window cavity and convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy.”
The claim encompasses a power generator, e.g., a SunCell® (Figs. 66C), comprising at least one reaction chamber for reactions involving atomic hydrogen products, (ii) a molten metal injection system (electromagnetic pump tube) that provides a molten metal stream to the reaction cell and at least one reservoir that receives the molten metal stream, and (iii) an ignition system comprising an electrical power source that provides low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to the at least one steam of molten metal to ignite a plasma to initiate rapid kinetics of the reaction and an energy gain (abstract; ¶[0381]).1
The “reaction to produc[e] a second plasma and reaction products” refers to a reaction described in the specification and characterized by Eqs. in at least ¶[0296-0336]; that forms hydrogen with lower energy states. In particular, the specification teaches these forms of hydrogen have energy levels given by Eqs.(10)-(12) and correspond to “hydrinos” (¶[0296]. “Hydrinos” being hydrogen atoms with fractional quantum numbers “n”. In contrast to standard quantum mechanics (QM) equations for the binding energy En for excited states of the hydrogen atom where the principal quantum number “n” is an integer per equation (11)---hydrinos are defined as hydrogen atoms comprising fractional numbers for n, or fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen (¶[0296]). They can be reacted with catalysts to provide a reaction with a net enthalpy (i.e., energy), e.g., of m · 27.2 eV (Eq.14) where m is an integer (¶[026-27]). As described in the specification, the “hydrogen reactor comprises a cell for making hydrinos. The cell for making hydrinos” (¶[0360];). Therefore, the power generator of claim 1, is understood as a device designed to produce hydrinos and accompanying reactions.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 20-22, 26 and 28-29 thus implicitly include hydrinos since they are intrinsic to the reaction that the effluence undergoes to produce a second plasma and reaction products. Put another way, hydrinos are necessary for the effluence to produce at least the hydrino reaction products described. Further, since energy from the second plasma is converted and/or transferred into mechanical, thermal and/or electrical energy by the claimed power adapter (e), it follows that hydrinos are responsible for power generation which is the utility of the invention.
However, the existence of such hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. Specifically, atomic hydrogen with fractional quantum numbers (n) such as those described in ¶[0319] and in the equation for the binding energy En represent energy states lower than those allowed by established theory and confirmed by experiment. Established classical quantum theory requires the quantum number “n” to be an integer per equation (11). The lowest energy state of hydrogen (i.e., ground state) corresponds to n = 1. Classical quantum theory specifically excludes fractional quantum numbers since this implies hydrogen energy states below the ground state. The invention as claimed is therefore inoperative and lacks a credible utility since it requires fractional quantum numbers which in turn imply the existence of something that established science does support and explicitly rejects---i.e., energy states of hydrogen lower than the ground state predicted and confirmed by established science. Indeed, the asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos with fractional quantum numbers could only be true if it violated these fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion
In quantum mechanics (QM), the Schrödinger equation, the auxiliary restrictions upon the wave function Ψ, and the interpretation of the wave function are fundamental postulates that provide the fundamental description of atomic spectra and periodicities found in the table of chemical elements2, 3. In particular, the hydrogen atom is a two-body problem consisting of an electron and a proton, and so it can be solved exactly. The Schrödinger equation was the first equation to successfully produce the experimental result for the observed energy levels of hydrogen from a basic equation of motion for the electron4. In the Schrödinger equation, the lowest value the principal quantum number “n” may take is the integer 1. This is referred to as the “ground state” of hydrogen and corresponds to a Bohr radius for the electron of 0.528 x 10-10 m. In the ground state, with n = 1, the electron has an energy Eo of -13.6 eV, or a Rydberg of energy (ER), equivalent to the ionization energy of hydrogen. The integer values for n result from the bound-state solutions to the spherically symmetric solution to the wave equation for hydrogen (Eq.19.7), so that instead of an infinite series, a finite polynomial results.5 Thus, the Schrödinger equation does not predict a hydrogen binding energy greater than 13.6 eV, in absolute terms. As summarized by Feynman, “[t]he Schrödinger equation has been one of the great triumphs of physics. By providing the key to the underlying machinery of atomic structure it has given an explanation for atomic spectra, for chemistry, and for the nature of matter.”
In Chap.5 of “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Pauling et al. present the Schrödinger equation for the radial wavefunction of the hydrogen atom Eq.(18-29) and explain mathematically how boundary conditions result in the allowed values for the total quantum number n to be an integer greater than or equal to one (pp.121-125). See also Bethe et al., “Quantum Mechanics of One and two-Electron Atoms” (Cornell University, 1977, pp.3-25.
In a later paper, with specific reference to applicant’s hydrino theory, the physicist Aaron Barth (“Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001) examines the applicant’s claims of hydrinos as set forth in his thousand-page book on the topic (presumably, his grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (“GUT”) incorporated by reference into the current application; see ¶[0200], ¶[0240] & ¶[0679]). Barth outlines the traditional quantum theory of the hydrogen atom, as modeled by Bohr and Schrödinger, and contrasts this with Mills’ theory. Barth notes Mills’ disagreement with the fundamental premises of quantum theory and how Mills instead replaces the Schrödinger equation with a wave equation having solutions representing “traveling waves”---something entirely different from solutions to the Schrödinger equation---without terms describing the electromagnetic force and without “bound-state” solutions representing an electron physically attached to an atom.6 Barth also notes that Mills’ wave equation doesn’t contain Planck’s constant that sets the overall scale of the quantization energy levels of the atom, and so Mills’ model can’t correctly predict the energy levels of hydrogen7. Barth notes Mills’ strange conclusion that the electron is confined to an infinitely thin spherical shell around the atom’s nucleus called the “orbitsphere” and that this is inconsistent with experimental data. Barth says that Mills “artificially graft[s] the Bohr model onto his theory in a way that is mathematically nonsensical” and that “[n]o matter what radius is chosen, the fact remains that this orbitsphere model is inconsistent with the wave equation” and he notes Mills’ hydrino model “isn’t a logical consequence of the wave equation, or of any other basic equation of motion for the electron…[and] doesn’t even rise to the level of a legitimate physical theory that one might potentially test by experiment, since it’s not mathematically coherent or self-consistent.”8 After debunking alleged astrophysical evidence for hydrinos in emission lines from flare stars and far-infra-red data from the Cosmic Background Explorer spacecraft, Barth concludes:
PNG
media_image1.png
276
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
115
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
718
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Barth is not the only physicist to express skepticism of hydrinos. Rathke (“A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127) notes severe mathematical inconsistencies in the model of the hydrogen atom upon which the theory (and, hence, the invention) is based and the incompatibility of hydrino states with standard QM. Rathke notes applicant’s “grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics” (CQM) predicting the existence of hydrinos proposes a classical wave equation for the electron’s charge-density function that is not Lorentz invariant for any other phase velocity than the speed of light, and so is at best the non-relativistic limit of a broader theory.9 Rathke explains in detail how the equation for non-zero orbital angular momentum (6) in applicant’s model is not solution of the wave equation (1) and thus fails to describe electron motion in a hydrogen atom with non-minimal angular momentum. In contrast, Rathke notes that electron states with non-zero angular momentum are well-described in standard quantum mechanics.10 Rathke also explains in detail how applicant’s model fails to provide a solution to the radial part of the wave equation for any orbital radius, and that there is no basis for deriving the existence of hydrinos from applicant’s wave equation.11 Rathke’s analysis “demonstrates that the theory is mathematically inconsistent in several points: the quantization condition of CQM allows only a solution for the ground state of the hydrogen atom; the radial solutions for the charge density function of the electron, as well as the angular solutions with non-zero angular momentum, differ from those given in the literature on CQM…[and] there is no way to cure the flaws of the theory by adding physical assumptions. CQM is obviously inconsistent, and in particular does not contain solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos.”
Rathke also considers whether standard QM allows for the existence of hydrinos and concludes that while solutions of the Schrödinger equation for n < 1 exist, they are not square integrable, and that “[t]his does not only violate one of the axioms of quantum mechanics, but in practical terms prohibits that these solutions can in any way describe the probability density of a particle. Thus solutions with n < 1 are meaningless in standard quantum theory and the existence of hydrinos as a solution of the Schrödinger equation for a classical Coulomb potential is excluded.” 12 Rathke also notes that the applicant’s experimental results would be more properly understood “if these were independently reproduced by some other experimental groups.”
Similarly, de Castro in “Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics”, Physics Letters A, Volume 369, Issues 5–6, pp.380-383 (2007)
notes that square integrability excludes singular wave functions in the Schrödinger equation for the non-relativistic case and provides further analysis of the relativistic case as modeled by the Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations. De Castro finds that even for these, the orthogonality criterion shows that anomalous bound-state solutions do not exist, because it “imposes additional constraints in such a way that the would-be relativistic square-integrable solutions for hydrino states, related to the thin lines in Fig.1 and Fig.2, are not acceptable, and only radial solutions behaving at the origin as r -1/2+ε, with ε > 0 for the Klein-Gordon case, and r -1+e for the Dirac case, are physically acceptable solutions” (abstract; p.6).
Domby in “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A, Vol.360, Issue 1, pp.62-65 (2006) discusses hydrino solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation for the Coulomb potential in three dimensions and the Dirac equation for the Coulomb potential in two dimensions. He shows these solutions are unphysical in spite of having normalisable wave functions because: 1) they lack non-relativistic counterparts even for arbitrarily small coupling; 2) the states persist even when coupling is turned off; and 3) the strength of the binding increases as the coupling strength α decreases, so the maximum binding occurs for α = 0 when the potential has disappeared completely. Further, Domby demonstrates that if the point charge of the nucleus is replaced by a charge extending over an arbitrarily small by finite radius R, then the anomalous functions become unacceptable because for small enough R they cease to satisfy the appropriate wave equation. He concludes that “[o]utside of science fiction this is sufficient reason to disregard them.”13
Khelashvili et al. in "Dirac reduced radial equations and the problem of additional solutions" International Journal of Modern Physics E, Vol 26,1750043 (2017) discusses so-called “additional solutions” in the problem of hydrogen-like atoms (also known as “hydrino” energy states) and concludes that two- and three-dimension solutions “…do not satisfy…fundamental physical principles and their existence is not possible” (p.15).
Kunze (“On the spectroscopic measurements used to support postulates of states with fractional principle quantum numbers in hydrogen", Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 41 (2008) 10800) critiques the discussion of the Schrodinger and Dirac equations and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle put forth by the inventor and his group in support of their hydrino theory and notes that “it becomes evident that fundamental ideas of quantum mechanics are simply pushed aside.” Kunze also notes spectrometers used in some experiments of the inventor and his group cannot measure spectra below 30 nm and therefore that some measurements cited in support of hydrinos are clearly nothing else by artefacts.
More recently, in several papers Phelps notes experiments conducted by Phillips et al. have not made convincing calorimetric tests of the model of energy generation by Mills” (abstract) 14 and the so-called hydrino continuum emissions proposed by Mills and Lu can be explained in terms of conventional physics and does not support the hydrino hypothesis (abstract; p.3).15 Citing Phelps, Petrovic notes "[t]he failure of our Hα broadening experiments to support the interpretations of various discharge experiments and their use to support the energy generation and “hydrino” model of Mills…has been outlined.” 16 Bagci examines adaptation of Slater type Orbitals for complete orthonormal basis sets for atoms and their generalization to non-integer quantum numbers (abstract).17 On p.21 Bagci notes that “[t]he case of hydrogen for less than 1 requires caution. A direct consequence of fractional principal quantum number could be spectral evidence (in the far UV) for a lower electronic state of e.g., hydrogen (below −13.6 eV). Spectra consistent with this were observed by Mills, leading to a number of papers, as well as excitement and investment in hypothetical energy sources. The hydrino was coined to name such atoms with shrunken orbitals and reaction products, like helium-ions, hydride-ions and even H2 were found. Unfortunately, it has not been proven to our knowledge that these came from fractional n hydrinos. Sometime later, there were even theoretical objections raised. Present status is that we still await direct experimental proof of hydrinos and must consider this example as 'what would be expected from a fractional hydrogen atom electronic state'. Even the far UV spectra may have been mis-interpreted.”
Thus, Pauling et al., Feynman et al., Bethe et al., Barth, Rathke, de Castro, Domby and Khelashvili et al., Kunze, Phelps, Petrovic and Bagci are at least twelve independent, expert sources demonstrating implicitly or explicitly that the existence of hydrinos is inconsistent with and contrary to the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry. This alone would occasion reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention and credibility of the asserted utility. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967). In re Newman, 782 F.2d 971, 973 (Fed.Cir.1986).
Also, the most recent assessment by Bagci that direct experimental proof of hydrinos still does not exist and that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been miss-interpreted demonstrates at the very least that hydrino theory is not accepted by the contemporary scientific community. The asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated these fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967); In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 462, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956).
Reference is also made to the Office’s findings in three of applicant’s earlier US applications directed to hydrino technology: SN 08/467,911, SN 12/153,613 & SN 12/213,476. In the first, the USPTO Board of Appeals & Interferences upheld rejections of claim 58 under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC ̠§ 112, first paragraph, directed to “[a] hydrino atom comprising: a hydrogen atom having an electron in a lower ground state energy level.” In the second, in the Appendix and Endnotes on pp.8-17 of the 28 February 2011 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of deficiencies in applicant’s grand unified theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (“GUT”) forming the theoretical basis for his underlying hydrino technology and incorporated by reference into the current application (see ¶[0338], ¶[0442] & ¶[0988]). In the third, in Appendices (A)-(C) on pp.22-34 of the 24 August 2010 Office Action, a detailed analysis is given of further deficiencies of the hydrino hypothesis.
In summary, according to the specification, the power generator of the claims implicitly includes hydrinos in order to produce power when effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction. But, hydrinos are contrary to established science. Production of power from hydrinos could only be true if it violated fundamental scientific principles and is thus wholly inconsistent with contemporary knowledge in the art. Therefore, the claimed invention lacks credible utility.
Evaluation of all relevant evidence of record
It is noted the closest prior art of record is US Pat.Pub. 20180159459 to Mills which teaches a thermophotovoltaic electric power generation system comprising:
a) at least one vessel capable of a maintaining a pressure below atmospheric comprising a reaction chamber (¶[0007]);
b) two electrodes configured to allow a molten metal flow therebetween to complete a circuit (¶[0005]; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]);
c) a power source connected to said two electrodes to apply an ignition current therebetween when said circuit is closed (¶[0117]);
d) a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas delivered thereto (i.e., in first vessel; ¶[0018]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0302]); wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to producing a second plasma and reaction products (i.e., in second vessel; ¶[0117]; ¶[0302]; ¶[0461]); and
e) a power adapter comprising a thermophotovoltaic converter configured to convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy (¶[0040]); wherein energy from the second plasma is absorbed in a blackbody radiator to produce blackbody radiation and said blackbody radiation is converted in the thermophotovoltaic converter (¶[0036]-¶[0040]).
This reference is by the same inventor as the current application. It is noted that it cannot be considered an objective, independent source of information regarding hydrinos and the credibility of the utility of the claimed power generator and plasma source using hydrinos.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 14-15, 25, 28, 32, 40, 47-48, 51-53, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) 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.
Per MPEP 2107.01 (IV), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph incorporates by reference the factual basis and conclusions set forth in the 35 USC 101 utility rejection. Because that rejection determined the invention as claimed does not have utility, a person skilled in the art would not be able to use the invention as claimed, and as such, the claim is defective under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention. As explained, the invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility since it is based upon the creation and use of “hydrinos” with energy ground states lower than ordinary hydrogen and fractional principal quantum numbers that are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry. Though hydrinos are not explicitly recited, they are implicit since the specification teaches the claimed power generator (i.e., the disclosed SunCell®) comprises a “cell for making hydrinos”, including “reactors for producing increased binding energy hydrogen species and compounds of the present disclosure, such as dihydrino molecules and hydrino hydride compounds….Such a reactor is hereinafter referred to as a “hydrogen reactor” or “hydrogen cell” (¶[0319]). The recitation in claim 1 wherein “…the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products….” refers to a hydrino reaction that occurs in the reaction cell chamber to produce “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” as described in ¶[213]. This description along with other descriptions in the specification of the reaction producing the second plasma produced by and/or producing hydrinos suggests hydrinos are implicit to the claimed power generation system. But, hydrinos do not exist, and so a person skilled in the art would not be able to make the invention as claimed.
Also, claim 1 is directed to a power system that generates mechanical, thermal and/or electrical energy when “a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products wherein energy from second plasma produces radiation;… g) a power adapter configured to receive the radiation transmitted through the transparent window cavity and convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy.” This reaction and/or reaction products implicitly comprise/s hydrinos. But, hydrinos do not exist, nor can they be produced by the claimed reaction, and therefore the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the invention as claimed to produce power.
Per MPEP 2164.01(a), the factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation, as set forth by in re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include:
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary,
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification,
(3) The presence or absence of working examples,
(4) The nature of the invention
(5) The state of the prior art,
(6) The relative skill of those in the art,
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art, and
(8) The breadth of the claims.
Each of these factors will be addressed as to their relevance to the lack of enablement of the present claims.
(1) The quantity of experimentation necessary
Claim 1 recites a power generation system including, inter alia,
“a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit; wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products wherein energy from second plasma produces radiation;… g) a power adapter configured to receive the radiation transmitted through the transparent window cavity and convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy.”
The specification teaches the power generator and plasma producer include a cell “The claim encompasses a power generator, e.g., a SunCell® (Figs. 66C), comprising at least one reaction chamber for reactions involving atomic hydrogen products, (ii) a molten metal injection system (electromagnetic pump tube) that provides a molten metal stream to the reaction cell and at least one reservoir that receives the molten metal stream, and (iii) an ignition system comprising an electrical power source that provides low-voltage, high-current electrical energy to the at least one steam of molten metal to ignite a plasma to initiate rapid kinetics of the reaction and an energy gain (abstract; ¶[0381]).
But, as noted above, “hydrinos” are hydrogen atoms comprising fractional numbers for n, or fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen given by Eqs. (¶[0381]). They can be reacted with catalysts to provide a reaction with a net enthalpy (i.e., energy), e.g., of m · 27.2 eV (equation 14) where m is an integer (¶[296]).
But, while the specification contains exhaustive descriptions of various cells, the problem is that the fundamental reaction producing the claimed power and/or plasma relies upon hydrinos which are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the scientific literature noted above. This implies an extraordinary quantity of experimentation would be necessary to produce them. Put another way, since the asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated fundamental scientific principles, one of ordinary skill would necessarily need to undertake experiments that falsify contemporary scientific knowledge, and an extraordinary quantity of experimentation would be necessary to do this.
(2) The amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification
The specification ¶[0295]-¶[359], in particular ¶[0296] describe hydrinos as comprising atomic hydrogen exhibiting fractional quantum numbers indicative of lower energy states than those predicted by classical quantum mechanics where the quantum number is an integer.
But, such a description is circular and of little guidance, since it presumes the existence of hydrinos which contradict and falsify classical quantum mechanics. While the specification provides no shortage of description, reduction to practice of hydrinos with fractional quantum numbers indicative of lower energy states than those predicted by classical quantum mechanics contradicts established science.
(3) The presence or absence of working examples
The most recent analysis by Bagci that direct experimental proof of hydrinos still does not exist and that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been mis-interpreted suggests no working examples of power generators or plasma systems employing hydrinos according to the claimed inventions currently exist. No working examples of hydrino-based devices producing power and/or plasma by independent, peer-reviewed, third-party research are on record.
According to information from Applicant’s website (https://brilliantlightpower.com/ suncell/ and https://brilliantlightpower.com/demonstrations/) a demonstration of a SunCell ® was given on 04-05 February 2021. But, the relationship between this device and the one in the current claims is unclear. Further, there was no indication that anyone except the inventor and his group were allowed to access, inspect and/or operate the demonstration. Also, the website does not indicate this or any other SunCell® are available for sale or otherwise commercially available. This is not surprising given that established science does not corroborate the underlying theories concerning the hydrino which are alleged to be produced by the device/s.
As noted in the utility rejection above, while the specification allegedly gives examples of conversion of hydrogen to hydrinos through reactions corresponding to, e.g., ¶[0295]-¶[359], in particular ¶[0296), hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore it is unclear that any examples that work according to the alleged hydrino theory actually exist. In US application Ser.No.12/213,476 to applicant directed to similar hydrino technology, the Office determined “there is no evidence which indicates applicant has succeeded in arriving at an operative system, or inventing a working method, that is capable of catalytic…reactions involving hydrogen, which may form novel hydrogen species of reduced atomic radius…” and noted that “[n]one of the licensing companies has ever been able to come up with a viable product” and “[t]he total lack of replication and confirmation by other independent researchers despite the worldwide publications over 19 years (as far back as 1991) is a tacit evidence for, either the invention does not work as claimed, or it is not useful, or both.”18 Further, Applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years (see, e.g., US 6,024,935, published 15 February 2000) but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented.
For these reasons, working examples of the claimed hydrino-based power or plasma generators are not known to exist.
(4) The nature of the invention
The commonly-accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry hold that hydrogen cannot exist below the “ground state” and have fractional value for the principal quantum number n. This is noted in the specification ¶[0295]-¶[359], describing the classic quantum mechanical model giving closed-form solutions with integer quantum numbers (n). In contrast, Applicant’s invention is based on novel composition of hydrogen called the “hydrino” which exists below the known “ground state” and has fractional values for (n). See, e.g., ¶[0296] and the discussion in the rejection under 35 USC §101 above. Thus, the fundamental nature of the present invention is that it consists of a form of hydrogen which cannot exist under the accepted laws of physics. In order to establish enablement, Applicant bears the burden of proving that the accepted scientific laws are wrong or incomplete.
(5) The state of the prior art
As noted above, US Pat.Pub.2018/0159459 substantially teaches the invention.
US Pat. 9,994,450 to Coyle discloses a hydrino theory similar to that of the present application, except that no catalysts are used within the apparatus and process (see c.6:8-27). Other patents and publications describing apparatus based on hydrino theory submitted in the 30 June 2023 & 25 July IDSs are to same inventor as the current application. Thus, the prior art of record describing hydrino theory appears limited primarily to the inventor and/or his associates.
(6) The relative skill of those in the art
The relative skill of those in the field of quantum mechanics is extremely high. Note, for example, the highly abstract nature and mathematics in the introductory portions of the texts to Pauling et al., Bethe et al., and Feynman noted above. Further, the level of the mathematical demonstrations by Rathke, De Castro, etc. showing hydrinos do not exist are evidence that analysis of hydrinos involves very high skill. Even though ordinarily the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art 19, given that the invention is directed to states of hydrogen without theoretical or empirical basis and that the cited expert opinion is universally opposed to their existence in nature, it is not seen how even the most expert of those skilled in the art could produce hydrinos as claimed.
(7) The predictability or unpredictability of the art
Since hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known laws of physics and chemistry in that they exhibit fractional principal quantum numbers representing energy levels below the known ground state of hydrogen, it is difficult to envision that one skilled in the art could extrapolate them since they are not predicted by theory and they have they been observed by independent researchers in the past. As noted in (6), the amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. Further, as noted above in (3), applicant’s hydrino technology has been in the public domain for over twenty years but no peer-reviewed literature by independent researchers of working examples has been documented, and there is no evidence any of the licensees for related technology has succeeded in building a reactor based on such hydrino reactions. The most recent analysis by Bagci that data of the far UV spectra made by Mills may have been mis-interpreted suggests the art is unpredictable in that the data is open to various interpretations. Note also Kunze’s statement that spectral observations carried out by the inventor and his group for certain spectral lines were mis-interpreted.
(8) The breadth of the claims
Claim 1 recites a power generation system comprising:
A power generation system comprising: a) at least one vessel comprising a baseplate capable of a maintaining a pressure below atmospheric comprising a reaction chamber; b) two electrodes each in fluid communication with molten metal contained in a corresponding reservoir, wherein the molten metal is configured to flow between the electrodes to complete a circuit; c) a power source connected to said two electrodes comprising a cathode and anode to apply an ignition current therebetween when said circuit is closed; d) optionally, a plasma generation cell to induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas; wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products wherein energy from second plasma produces radiation; e) a transparent window cavity to transmit radiation produced from the second plasma, wherein the transparent window cavity is in contact with the baseplate of the vessel; f) a wet seal between the transparent window cavity and the baseplate comprising a wet seal molten metal, and g) a power adapter configured to receive the radiation transmitted through the transparent window cavity and convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy.
The claim appears to be fairly narrow; nevertheless, all the elements are taught in the prior art, e.g., Mills US Pat.Pub.2018/0159459.
Summary
Per the preceding Wands factor analysis, because the quantity of experimentation necessary is very large, the specification provides little guidance for making hydrinos, there are no working examples of hydrinos or machines which use them in peer-reviewed scientific literature by independent third party researchers, the nature of the invention is fundamentally at odds with the accepted laws of quantum mechanics and chemistry, the state of the prior art is limited, the unpredictable nature of the invention precludes extrapolation thereof by even the most expert, and the breadth of the claims is broad, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to make them or use the invention as claimed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9, 11, 14-15, 25, 28, 32, 40, 47-48, 51-53, and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mills (US 20180159459 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Mills discloses a power generation system comprising:a) at least one vessel comprising a baseplate capable of a maintaining a pressure below atmospheric comprising a reaction chamber (¶[0007]; Figs.2H4; 2I8); b) two electrodes each in fluid communication with molten metal contained in a corresponding reservoir (¶[0117]; ¶[0326]), wherein the molten metal is configured to flow between the electrodes to complete a circuit (abstract; ¶[0005]; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0326]; ¶[0331]-¶[0332]); c) a power source connected to said two electrodes comprising a cathode and anode to apply an ignition current therebetween when said circuit is closed (¶[0040]; ¶[0275]; Fig.2G1e4);d) optionally, a plasma generation cellto induce the formation of a first plasma from a gas (e., first vessel; ¶[0018]; ¶[0032]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0302]); wherein effluence of the plasma generation cell is directed towards the circuit (¶[0018]; ¶[0032]; ¶[0116]; ¶[0302]); wherein when current is applied across the circuit, the effluence of the plasma generation cell undergoes a reaction to produce a second plasma and reaction products wherein energy from second plasma produces radiation ( ¶[0117]; ¶[0302]; ¶[0325]; ¶[0461]);e) a transparent window cavity to transmit radiation produced from the second plasma, wherein the transparent window cavity is in contact with the baseplate of the vessel (¶[0408]; ¶[0507); ) a wet seal between the transparent window cavity and the baseplate comprising a wet seal molten metal (¶[0201), and g) a power adapter configured to receive the radiation transmitted through the transparent window cavity and convert and/or transfer energy from the second plasma into mechanical, thermal, and/or electrical energy (¶[0036]-¶[0040]; ¶[0512]- ¶[0513]).
With respect to claim 2, Mills discloses the molten metal is supplied to the electrodes to close the circuit by two molten metal injector systems that each form a molten metal stream in contact with one of the electrodes (injector 5z1 ¶[0244] ¶[0315]), wherein the molten metal streams intersect to close the circuit (¶[0373), and each molten metal injector system comprises: a) at least a reservoir that contains some of the molten metal (¶[0302-303]), a molten metal pump system (e.g., one or more electromagnetic pumps) configured to deliver the molten metal in the reservoir and through an injector tube to provide a molten metal stream (¶[0328]), and the reservoir for receiving a returning molten metal stream following injection (¶[0409]),; b) an inlet riser tube to control the molten metal level in the reservoir (¶[0409]); c) an electrical break in the wall of the reservoir to electrically isolate each of the corresponding electrodes from the electrode of opposite polarity (¶[0309), and d) an alignment mechanism to change the orientation of the electrode injector such that the corresponded two streams of the two electrodes intersect to complete the circuit (¶[0403].
With respect to claim 9, Mills discloses the vessel comprises a spherical, hemispherical, or parabolic dome section to which the reservoirs are connected (fig. 2I8, cell 26) and further comprises a drip edge at the connection to each outer reservoir (fig. 2H1, shot dripper 5i).
With respect to claim 11, Mills discloses the baseplate and vessel further comprises reflective liners of all the surfaces that are incident the plasma radiation (¶[0294]) and reflect the incident light through the window cavity to the power adapter wherein the liners further comprise penetrations for the injectors that are further covered by reflective penetration liners ((¶[0184).
With respect to claim 14, Mills discloses an electromagnetic pump baseplate wherein the surfaces in contact with the molten metal are coated with a coating (e.g., boron nitride) that prevents alloy formation with the molten metal ((¶[0296).
With respect to claim 15, Mills discloses the vessel is connected to the window cavity and the wet seal further comprises:a) a window flange at the base of the window cavity ((¶[0307]);b) a baseplate flange on the baseplate ((¶[0307]; c) a top flange on top of the window cavity flange having a mechanical connection to the baseplate flange to provide pressure on the window flange against the baseplate flange ((¶[0307]; d) a gasket (e.g., carbon) on a least one window cavity flange surface in contact with the top flange and the baseplate flange (((¶[0305]); e) at least one of an inner circumferential housing or retention wall to the inside of the window cavity and an outer circumferential housing or retention wall to the outside of the window cavity flange (((¶[402], gap), and f) wet seal molten metal retained by the housing and retention wall and the gasket to maintain a lower pressure inside of the window cavity relative to outside to maintain a pressure differential (¶[402]).
With respect to claim 25, Mills discloses the wet seal and window cavity further comprises a gasket interface comprising surfaces that permit relative moment between the gasket and the window cavity without destructive damage to the gasket (((¶[0392]).
With respect to claim 28, Mills discloses the inner and outer reservoirs further comprise a thermal conductor (¶[0309], thermon T-99) and an electrical insulator which conduct heat positioned in the gap between the inner and outer reservoirs and permit heat conduction while maintaining the electrical isolation of the two electrodes (¶[0394], Mullite or boron nitride).
With respect to claim 32, Mills discloses said gas in the plasma generation cell comprises a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (02) (¶[0032]; ¶[0242).
With respect to claim 40, Mills discloses the vessel has a wet floor and/or a wet wall ((¶[0201), and a baseplate or wall of the vessel has a layer of molten metal deposited thereon to reflect the second plasma light through the window cavity to the power adapter (¶[413).
With respect to claim 47, Mills discloses power generation system comprising a magnetohydrodynamic wet seal for maintaining a vacuum on one side of a photovoltaic (PV) window comprising a cavity transparent to optical power ((¶[0201); wherein the wet seal joins the PV window chamber and a baseplate (e.g., a baseplate of the vessel having penetrations for the tops of one or more reservoirs) (¶[0408]; ¶[0507) and comprises a channel containing molten metal into which the PV window chamber is inserted (abstract; ¶[0005]; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0326]; ¶[0331]-¶[0332]); wherein the molten metal is electrically connected to a power supply to create current in the molten metal in the channel to induce magnetorestriction of the molten metal in the housing to maintain the seal (¶[0360];);wherein light is generated on one side of the PV window, transmitted through the window, and collected in at least one photovoltaic cell to generate electrical power (¶[0149-159).
With respect to claim 48, Mills discloses the molten metal is exposed to magnetic field such that the Lorentz force of the current and magnetic field on the molten metal in the channel is directed against external forces on the molten metal to maintain the wet seal (¶[397-398]).
With respect to claim 49, Mills discloses wet seal for maintaining a vacuum on one side of a photovoltaic (PV) window comprising a cavity transparent to optical power (¶[0159); wherein the wet seal joins a PV window chamber and a baseplate (e.g., a baseplate of the vessel having penetrations for the tops of one or more reservoirs) (¶[307) and comprises a channel containing molten metal into which the PV window chamber is inserted (¶[0219 and 0282); wherein the molten metal rotates such that the centrifugal force pushes radially on the molten metal to maintain the seal against external forces (¶[0214] ¶[0319] and ¶[0412]).
With respect to claim 51, Mills discloses wet seal for maintaining a vacuum on one side of a photovoltaic (PV) window comprising a cavity transparent to optical power ((¶[0149-159); wherein the seal comprises an electrically insulated channel dimensioned for the photovoltaic window chamber to be inserted therein and extending around the PV window chamber when the PV window chamber is inserted in the channel (¶0348]); wherein the channel is filled with molten metal (¶[0348); wherein the electrically insulated channel has at least one positive lead electrode and at least one negative lead electrode at different points of the channel (¶0348]); at least one current is applied through the molten metal in the channel (¶0349-0350]), and the molten metal is exposed to at least one magnetic field applied by at least one magnet to create at least one Lorentz force along a section of the channel wherein the electrodes and magnets are configured and oriented such that the Lorentz forces of the corresponding currents and magnetic fields are in the vector directions to oppose the atmospheric pressure force on the molten metal in the channel to produce a vacuum seal, the Lorentz forces of the currents and magnetic fields are sufficient to maintain a pressure difference (¶0348]).
With respect to claim 52, Mills discloses the seal comprises two or more electrically insulated channels (¶0264] and [0355]); wherein each channel has at least one positive lead electrode and negative lead electrode (¶0245]); wherein when the PV window chamber comprising at least one edge is inserted into at least one channel, each channel is independently filled with molten metal such that the two or more channels together extend around the PV window (¶0348]), and the current or currents in each channel is independently biased and together interact with independent Lorentz fields to maintain a pressure difference (¶0348]).
With respect to claim 53, Mills discloses a method of maintaining a pressure difference between two sides of a first solid material comprising:a) mating the first solid material and the second solid material with the molten metal disposed therebetween (¶0263]); wherein when mated, the molten metal has a magnetic field applied thereto (¶0263] and [0282]); b) applying a current through the molten metal (¶0282]); c) reducing the pressure on the molten metal (¶0282]); wherein the force created by the current and the magnetic field opposes the force created by the reduction of pressure to maintain the pressure difference (¶0192-193]).
With respect to claim 56, Mills discloses the PV window forms a PV window cavity having a flange at its base (¶[0307]), and the PV window flange is seated on a window cavity baseplate (¶[0307]); wherein the magnetohydrodynamic wet seal between the PV window cavity flange and the window cavity baseplate further comprising comprises:a) a molten metal reservoir circumferential to the PV window cavity flange that supplies molten metal to a gap between the bottom of the PV window flange and a portion of the baseplate (¶[0117]; ¶[0326]), ¶[0408]; ¶[0507] ¶[417]); b) a continuous separator in a gap between an outer wall of the molten metal reservoir wall and a vertical edge of the PV window flange and the gap between the bottom of the PV window flange and the baseplate (¶[0242]); c) a source of magnetic field such as a permanent magnet, wherein the magnetic field produced from the source of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the gap between the PV window flange and the baseplate (¶[0190]); d) a current supply and electrodes on opposite sides of the continuous separator connected to the molten metal to supply current to the corresponding tin or gallium wet seal circuit (abstract; ¶[0005]; ¶[0012]-¶[0013]; ¶[0326]; ¶[0331]-¶[0332]), wherein the current, in the presence of the crossed magnetic field, produces a radial MHD force in the gap between the PV window flange and the baseplate (¶[0214] ¶[0319] and ¶[0412]), and e) an MHD-atmospheric pressure force balance processor operably connected to sensors of the wet seal position such as at least one optical sensor and one conductivity sensor (¶[239]), an MHD current sensor and controller, an evacuation rate sensor such as a pressure gauge and controller such as at least one of a vacuum value such as a needle valve and its controller and a vacuum pump and its controller wherein the MHD-atmospheric pressure force balance processor may receive sensor input and reiteratively adjust the MHD current and vacuum rate to achieve and maintain a stable wet seal as and when the PV window cavity is evacuated (¶[239] and [0293]).
With respect to claim 57, Mills discloses the MHD-atmospheric pressure force balance processor sets the current supply controller to provide a current corresponding to an increased MHD force relative to the maximum atmospheric force (¶[0190]), whereby as a vacuum inside the PV window cavity, the outer atmospheric pressure causes more molten metal to flow into the gap between PV window flange and the baseplate to cause an increase in the width of the wet seal and an increase in MHD current flow with a concomitant increase in the opposing MHD force until a steady state wet seal is established (¶[0326]; ¶[0331]-¶[0332]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILEY OWEN STOUT whose telephone number is (571)272-0068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30pm EST.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at (571)272-3560. 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.
/R.O.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 All paragraph references are made with respect to the published specification US Pat.Pub.US20250055363A1
2 L.Pauling et al. “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1985), p.52.
3 R.Feynman et al., “The Feynman Lectures on Physics---Quantum Mechanics” Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading Mass. (1965), p.19-1 & 19-5.
4 Ibid., p.19-1 & 19-5.
5 Ibid., p.2-6, p.19-5.
6 A.Barth, “Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001, p.42.
7 Ibid., p.43.
8 Ibid., p.43.
9 Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127, Eq.1. p.3.
10 Ibid., p.4.
11 Ibid., pp.5-6.
12 Ibid., p.6.
13 N.Dombey, “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A 360, p.62-65 (2006).
14 A.V. Phelps; Comment on “Water bath calorimetric study of excess heat generation in resonant transfer plasmas” [J. Appl. Phys.96, 3095 (2004)] J. Appl. Phys. 98 (6) September 2005.
15 A.V. Phelps et al. "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al." Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 120 (2012).
16 Petrović et al. "Energetic ion, atom, and molecule reactions and excitation in low-current H2 discharges: Spatial distributions of emissions" Phys. Rev. E 80, 016408, 17 July, 2009.
17 Bagci et al. "Complete and orthonormal sets of exponential-type orbitals with non-integer quantum numbers" Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, Volume 56, Number 33, 28 July 2023
18 Non-Final Office Action, Ser.No.12/213,476, dated 06 February 2012, pp.7-8, 13 & 16. Cited in 11 May 2021 PTO-892.
19 In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970); MPEP 2164.03.
Prosecution Insights