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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 9–10 in the reply filed on 08/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1–8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2026.
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 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility.
In Brenner v. Manson, the Supreme Court stated that “[t]he basic quid pro quo contemplated by the Constitution and the Congress for granting a patent monopoly is the benefit derived by the public from an invention with substantial utility. Unless and until a process is refined and developed to this point—where specific benefit exists in currently available form—the is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field.” 383 U.S. 519, 534-35 (1966). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) accordingly explains that the purpose of the utility requirement is “to limit patent protection to inventions that possess a certain level of ‘real world’ value, as opposed to subject matter that represents nothing more than an idea or concept, or is simply a starting point for future investigation or research.” MPEP § 2103, A., I.
Thus USPTO has the initial burden of setting forth a reason to doubt an Appellant's presumptively correct assertion of utility. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The PTO may establish a reason to doubt an invention's asserted utility when the written description ‘suggest[s] an inherently unbelievable undertaking or involve[s] implausible scientific principles.”’ In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the claims are directed to an approach to nuclear fusion which Applicants identify as nuclear fusion by impact of a beam on a target. Claim 9, for example, recites:
A method for controlling nuclear fusion ... of a nuclear fusion device … controlling a nuclear beam … converting energy produced by the nuclear fusion reaction into thermal energy and electrical energy for output.
In the Specification,1 at ¶¶ 1–4, Applicant asserts that the present invention is for “the aim of achieving controllable nuclear fusion” but then details how all previous attempts at achieving said nuclear fusion reactions have failed:
“However, this process [of hydrogen bombs] involves a sudden explosion that releases a vast amount of energy, is destructive, completely uncontrollable, and not sustainable. The energy produced cannot be recovered or utilized,” ¶ 2
“Since current nuclear fusion requires temperatures above one hundred million degrees and the Lawson criterion must be met, it is difficult to achieve the controllable nuclear fusion, and achieving controllable nuclear fusion has become an urgent problem to be solved,“ ¶ 3
However, despite the failure of all others hitherto, Applicant claims to have overcome the tremendous barriers known in the art and invented a method for achieving fusion yielding a positive energy output without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion.2 For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core.3 Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more. The claimed method when read in light of the Specification, by contrast, operates as significantly lower temperatures than would be needed for nuclear fusion to occur.
Applicants envisage the disclosed and asserted utilities are “achieving controllable nuclear fusion,” Specification, ¶ 3, using cold temperatures: 700-100° C, ¶ 52.
The Specification describes fusion activity in theoretical terms but does not demonstrate a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., net positive energy such as for performing work, e.g., for claim 9’s assertion of “nuclear fusion reaction [for] electrical energy for output.” Nor is there a disclosure of the specific mechanisms, operational parameters, etc. that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize as capable of sustaining a fusion reaction on the scale needed to currently achieve the benefits noted above.
Other publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear, cold, or hybrid—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted Dylla,4 as recently as 2020, the largest nuclear fusion project in the world—the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)—aspired to achieve a successful fusion demonstration “for several minutes duration” by 2026 at the absolute earliest. This is with a projected cost of “greater than $10 billion.”
Further according to the official ITER5 webpage:
“The world record for fusion power in a magnetic confinement fusion device is held by the European tokamak JET. In 1997, JET produced 16 MW of fusion power from a total input heating power of 24 MW (Q=0.67). ITER is designed to yield in its plasma a ten-fold return on power (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not convert the heating power it produces as electricity, but — as the first of all magnetic confinement fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain across the plasma (crossing the threshold of Q≥1) — it will prepare the way for the machines that can.”
There currently exist no nuclear fusion reactors, thermonuclear (hot) or cold, capable of producing useful energy gain for practical applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) is the largest operational fusion system in the US to date that operates at extreme temperatures. In December 2022, the NIF reportedly achieved a “nuclear fusion breakthrough,” producing 3.15 MJ of fusion energy from 2.05 MJ of laser light. This was the first ever demonstration in the world of a target producing more energy than was delivered to the target. However, the laser system6 itself required 322 MJ of energy to create these fusion reactions, multiple orders of magnitude greater than the energy produced. Thus, while an achievement in fusion, the experiment is far from a demonstration of practical energy production—as stated by experts in the fusion community.7,8
When the most advanced thermonuclear fusion reactors in the world have yet to create more energy than they consume (“net” energy gain), Applicant’s claims to (a) already be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that such a method achieves useful electricity production would be questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To accomplish this feat, Applicant’s method relies on the beam irradiation of “a nuclear fusion material in the reaction vessel,” claim 9.
However, as is known by those having ordinary skill in the art, overcoming the Coulomb barrier to achieve critical ignition for nuclear fusion is only known to occur at extremely high kinetic energies, i.e., extremely high temperatures, such as those present on the sun. Georgia State University9 explains:
“The temperatures required to overcome the coulomb barrier for fusion to occur are so high as to require extraordinary means for their achievement. Such thermally initiated reactions are commonly called thermonuclear fusion. With particle energies in the range of 1-10keV, the temperatures are in the range of 107–108 K.”
Applicants have failed to sufficiently disclose how the claimed method for irradiating the “material” is capable of producing or sustaining a fusion reaction. The disclosure provides no mechanism for achieving and maintaining the temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius/Kelvin known to be required to achieve nuclear fusion ignition, even though this fact is acknowledged by Applicant in ¶ 3: “Since current nuclear fusion requires temperatures above one hundred million degrees and the Lawson criterion must be met, it is difficult to achieve the controllable nuclear fusion…”.
To the contrary, the claimed invention operates between the temperatures of 700 °C and 1000 °C, Specification at ¶ 52.
As cited above in the quotation from Georgia State University, the minimum temperature required for nuclear fusion ignition is between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000 Kelvin. Applicant’s range of 700 degrees Celsius to 1000 degrees Celsius is equivalent to 973 Kelvin to 1273 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention lies in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.
In summary, Applicant’s invention tries to “have it both ways,” citing (a) positive output hot nuclear fusion for its benefits (electricity production, claim 9) but (b) cold nuclear fusion for its benefits (the structure will remain intact and not melt).
For the present invention, which is directed to a way of attempting nuclear fusion at odds with established scientific principles, evidence and acceptance by the scientific community is of crucial importance because the PTO may meet its burden to establish a prima facie case of lack of utility where the written description suggests an unbelievable undertaking or implausible principles. See In re Cortright, 165 F.3d. at 1357.
The Examiner cannot find, and Applicant has not supplied, any reputable and peer-reviewed papers in which the mainstream scientific community (i.e., outside of Applicant’s own laboratory) has replicated or built upon Applicant’s purportedly revolutionary discovery. Therefore, the Examiner must conclude that the claimed invention has not been independently reproduced.
In view of the above, it is more likely than not that an ordinarily skilled artisan would doubt the effective obtention of a fusion reaction, i.e., causing and capability to create useful electricity as claimed, as well the benefits asserted by Applicants as of the effective date of the claims. Rather, the preponderance of evidence supports a finding that as of the effective date, the claimed method was at most at starting point for future investigation or research. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864, In re Cortright, 165 F.3d at 1357.
Claims 9–10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejection, which are incorporated herein. The production of useful electricity from a nuclear fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (e.g., “achieving a neutron nuclear fusion cycle reaction and releasing energy …. converts the energy produced by the nuclear fusion reaction into electrical energy for output,” claim 9). Applicant’s invention is claimed as operating at temperatures (700 °C to 1000 °C, Specification at ¶ 52) many orders of magnitude below what the scientific community considers conducive to nuclear fusion. The ordinary skilled artisan would find it more likely than not that Applicant’s invention was neither (a) net-energy-producing hot fusion, nor (b) cold fusion because, as detailed above: regarding (a), net-energy-producing hot nuclear fusion has never yet been observed; and regarding (b), cold fusion is considered unworkable by the scientific community, and Applicant’s mode of operation requires a very first step of precisely manipulating the natural phenomenon of electron screening well beyond what is currently considered possible. The Examiner has provided a preponderance of evidence as to why the asserted operation and utility of Applicant's invention is inconsistent with known scientific principles, making it speculative at best as to whether attributes of the invention necessary to impart the asserted utility are actually present in the invention. See In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, the invention as disclosed is deemed inoperable, i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the Applicant.
As set forth in MPEP § 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 34 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Citing In re Brana, the Federal Circuit noted,
“Obviously, if a claimed invention does not have utility, the Specification cannot enable one to use it.”
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.
Claims 9–10 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a). Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by a well-established utility or a substantial and credible asserted utility for the same reasons set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 (which are incorporated herein), one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Claims 9–10 are further rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, a person skilled in the art at the time the application was filed would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed in view of the disclosure for the reasons provided in the above 101 rejections, which are incorporated herein.
Claims 9–10 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the Specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
To be enabling, the disclosure, as filed, must be sufficiently complete to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and a use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. It is the Examiner’s position that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to produce an operative embodiment of the claimed invention.
Applicant admits that previous, well-funded and decades-long attempts at producing sustained and viable nuclear fusion reactors have been unsuccessful (Specification, ¶¶ 1–4). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative method for achieving an electricity-producing nuclear fusion reaction (claim 9) in a low-temperature environment (Spec., ¶ 52).
To determine whether a given claim is supported in sufficient detail (by combining the information provided in the disclosure with information known in the art) such that any person skilled in the art could make and use the invention as of the filing date of the application without undue experimentation, at least the following factors should be included:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
This standard is applied in accordance with the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals decision In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Telectronics Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 785, 8 USPQ2d 1217, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1046 (1989).
Reviewing the aforementioned Wands factors, the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, a determination that the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement. Specifically:
(A) The breadth of the claims: Applicant’s claim to cause beam-induced nuclear fusion on a lithium-containing material (claim 9) is broad.
See MPEP § 2164.08.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention, i.e., the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, revolves around the viability of cold (low-energy) nuclear fusion as a substantial source of marketable commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, cold fusion involves a questionable departure from the accepted and well-tested theories that comprise known nuclear and plasma physics, chemistry, and electromagnetism. As such, the subject matter to which the invention pertains lies outside the realm of working science.
See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(C) The state of the prior art: The effects claimed by Applicant have not been verified by the existing body of scientific work and are, in fact, incompatible with it.
See MPEP § 2164.05(a).
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The claims are directed to cold fusion, which is roundly rejected by mainstream science. Thus, the level of ordinary skill in the art is challenging to ascertain. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the obstacles and repeated failure in achieving/sustaining nuclear fusion when the Lawson criterion is not satisfied—e.g., extreme temperature. Those skilled in the art would also understand that cold or low-energy nuclear fusion, from which the instant invention is seemingly derived, lies within the realm of fringe science and offends generally accepted physics. See MPEP § 2164.05(b).
(E) The level of predictability in the art: Low-temperature nuclear fusion experiments are predictably unable to produce expected, reproducible, or meaningful empirical data.
See MPEP § 2164.03.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant's underlying theory is aspirational at best, and no independent experimental results or other persuasive supporting evidence is provided for the record.
See MPEP § 2164.03.
(G) The existence of working examples: No working examples are provided. Nor is there evidence that the provided example has been reliably reproduced or that it enjoys mainstream support.
See MPEP § 2164.02.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: The quantity of experimentation needed is unreasonable because the practical guidance provided is insufficient to enable one to build or operate a working prototype of the invention, and the provided theoretical guidance is insufficient to enable one to understand the underlying sequence of phenomena required to attempt such an endeavor. See MPEP § 2164.06.
Any claim not specifically addressed above that depends on a rejected claim is accordingly also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 All references to the Specification herein are made to the pre-grant publication.
2 “Plasmas must meet three conditions for fusion to occur, including reaching sufficient temperature, density, and [confinement] time.” The Science of Fusion Where triple product reigns supreme”, https://usfusionenergy.org/science-fusion (last visited Feb. 28, 2025).
3 Id.
4 How Long is the Fuse on Fusion? Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020, pages 85–86.
5 What will ITER do? <iter.org/fusion-energy/what-will-iter-do>
6 https://lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition
7 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04440-7>.
8 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article. <https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2022/national-ignition-facility-achieves-long-sought-fusion-goal#>.
9 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University: <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/coubar.html>.
