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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the applicant's amendment submitted on 09/01/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2, 9 and 14 have been canceled. Figure 4 has been amended with a replacement sheet, and figure 5 is newly added. The specification has been amended to provide descriptions for figures 4 and 5. Thus, claims 1, 3-8 and 10-13 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation recites “generating, within a plasma device having at least one outer boundary that defines walls, at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration” in claim 1, and the limitation recites “wherein the at least one electric field have a component parallel to magnetic field lines such that the at least one electric field is larger in an interior region of the plasma and substantially reduced near the walls of the plasma device” in amended claim 1, the limitation recites “wherein the at least one magnetic field is configured to have a plurality of magnetic field lines shaped into conducting wall regions which act as electrodes separated by insulators” in claim 8, and the limitation recites “wherein the at least one magnetic field comprises a diverging nozzle geometry” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). None of the bolded limitations shown in any drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed on 09/01/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the prior-filed application is as follows:
According to figures 4-5 and page 5 of the amendment to the specification, the limitations recite "magnetic field lines 402, Helmholtz coils 404 to generate the magnetic field, and an RF antenna 406 to launch the RF waves” in figure 4, and the limitation recites “the neutral beam launchers 502 are shown emitting the neutral beams 504 to produce the fields” in figure 5 do not disclose in the original disclosure.
None of these terms are defined in the original specification. Therefore, the amendment introduces new matter into the claims. The amendment cannot include a new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 3-8 and 10-13 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification, paragraph [0017], discloses "the system may include a magnetic field source. The magnetic field source may be configured to generate at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration. The axially directed magnetic field may be configured to confine a plasma in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field. The system may also include an electric field source. The electric field source may be configured to generate a steady-state electric field parallel to magnetic field lines produced by the magnetic field source such that the steady-state electric field is larger in an interior region of the plasma and substantially reduced in boundary regions of the plasma." However, applicant does not describe or explain with the adequate support of “how the magnetic field source may be configured to generate at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration. The axially directed magnetic field may be configured to confine a plasma in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field. And how does the electric field source may be configured to generate a steady-state electric field parallel to magnetic field lines produced by the magnetic field source such that the steady-state electric field is larger in an interior region of the plasma and substantially reduced in boundary regions of the plasma.” However, the magnetic field source, the electric field source, an outer boundary that defines walls, Furthermore, there are not any drawings shown how the system work. There is only a flowchart of figure 1 shown the method claim.
Furthermore, the specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same (see 37 CFR 1.71).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation recites “generating, within a plasma device having at least one outer boundary that defines walls, at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration,” and the limitation recites “generating at least one electric field within the plasma device” are unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear how does it generate at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration? And how does it generate at least one electric field within the plasma device?
It is confused and unclear that in paragraph [0017], the original specification discloses “the magnetic field source may be configured to generate at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration” and “the electric field source may be configured to generate a steady-state electric field parallel to magnetic field lines produced by the magnetic field source.” However, the applicant amended the specification as “Helmholtz coils 404 to generate the magnetic field, and an RF antenna 406 to launch the RF waves. And neutral beams to produce the electric fields, and specifically, the neutral beam launchers 502 are shown emitting the neutral beams 504 to produce the fields.”
The claim fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts for achieving the functional result recited in the claim to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation recites “reducing electric field strength near the walls by increasing resistivity of the plasma” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that where does resistivity of the plasma coming from? And how does it reduce electric field strength near the walls by increasing resistivity of the plasma?
Regarding claim 4, the limitation recites “introducing a cold plasma between the walls and the plasma” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it introduce a cold plasma between the walls and the plasma?
Regarding claim 5, the limitation recites “introducing radiating impurities into the cold plasma” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it introduce radiating impurities into the cold plasma?
Regarding claim 6, the limitation recites “modifying a geometry of magnetic field lines such that the magnetic field lines spread before contacting the walls” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it modify a geometry of magnetic field lines such that the magnetic field lines spread before contacting the walls?
Regarding claim 7, the limitation recites “modifying an angle of contact between magnetic field lines and the walls” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it modify an angle of contact between magnetic field lines and the walls?
Regarding claim 8, the limitation recites “modifying an angle of contact between magnetic field lines and the walls” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it modify an angle of contact between magnetic field lines and the walls?
Regarding claim 10, the limitation recites “isolating a radial voltage drop in an interior of the plasma so an electric field at the wall is smaller than an electric field in the interior of the plasma by setting field strength and shape of the at least one magnetic field so as to use centrifugal forces to modify plasma currents in a direction parallel to the magnetic field” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it isolate a radial voltage drop in an interior of the plasma? And how does it set field strength and shape of the at least one magnetic field?
Regarding claim 11, the limitation recites “generating at least a part of a voltage drop using wave-particle interactions” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it generate at least a part of a voltage drop using wave-particle interactions?
Regarding claim 12, the limitation recites “generating at least a part of a voltage drop using torque from neutral beams” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it generate at least a part of a voltage drop using torque from neutral beams?
The claims fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts for achieving the functional result recited in the claim to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim. It is not clearly explained in the specification as same reasons as stated above; therefore, it renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 3-8 and 10-13 are depending on claim 1, and are rejected as the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Note: for compact prosecution purposes the examiner interprets the claims above as best understood of the original claims and maintains the rejection of the previous office action.
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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wong (U.S Publication No. 20190206578 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses a method for producing a voltage across a magnetized plasma (which is methods, apparatuses, devices, and systems for producing and controlling and fusion activities of nuclei, see fig. 1-25), comprising:
generating, within a plasma device having at least one outer boundary that defines walls, at least one magnetic field including an axially directed magnetic field in an open field line configuration, wherein the axially directed magnetic field confines a plasma in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field; and generating at least one electric field within the plasma device; wherein the at least one electric field have a component parallel to magnetic field lines such that the at least one electric field is larger in an interior region of the plasma and substantially reduced near the walls of the plasma device; and wherein the at least one electric field and at least one magnetic field are configured to mitigate natural dissipation of the electric fields (see abstract, paragraph [0008], [0122]-[0123], [0126], [0145] and [0215]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment introduces new matter into the disclosure, therefore the new drawings and the claims are not considered. Therefore, the claims interpret as best understood as the original claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 10/08/2026
