DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-5 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4
It is suggested that the limitation “comprising a mixture hydrogen gas and oxygen gas” be amended to read “comprising a mixture of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed 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, 877F.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.
(A) Asserted specific and substantial utility is not credible reasoning
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).
The instant specification discloses the claimed system as part of a power-generation system in which electromagnetic pumps inject streams of molten metal that intersect within a reaction environment. Electrical current is supplied to the intersecting streams of molten metal to ignite reactants and form a plasma. The specification specifically discloses that this arrangement is used to initiate and sustain the production of “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” (paras. [0008-0009], [0015-0016], [0102-0103], [0233], [0417-0418] and [0459-0460]). However, “hydrinos” are “lower-energy hydrogen species” a detailed theory of which is given in paragraphs [0080]-[0101] and [0111]-[0147] of the instant published specification. The specification further attributes the production of electrical and/or thermal energy to the formation of these lower energy hydrino species.
According conventionally accepted scientific principle, the existence of hydrogen with a binding energy corresponding to a value of “n” which is not supported by the conventional quantum-mechanical treatment of the hydrogen atom. Standard quantum mechanics (QM) stipulates n must be an integer greater than or equal to one (See Eq. 11). In contrast to standard QM equations, hydrinos are defined as hydrogen atoms comprising fractional numbers for n, or fractional Rydberg states of atomic hydrogen given by equations (10) & (12) (para. [0087]). 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 (paras. [0087] and [0102]-[0110]).
Claim 1 recites a system comprising two electromagnetic pumps configured to produce intersecting streams of molten metal and a source of electrical power to supply current to the intersecting streams.
The specification ties this arrangement as an ignition system for causing the disclosed reactants to react and form the plasma associated with hydrino reactions. Thus, the utility asserted by the specification for the claimed system is directly tied to hydrinos.
Claim 4 further requires a source of hydrogen and a source of oxygen gas such that the streams intersect in an environment comprising a mixture hydrogen gas and oxygen gas.
The specification expressly associates hydrogen-, oxygen-, and water reactants with the asserted hydrino reaction.
As noted, the specification teaches a system including the disclosed SunCell® which 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.” The hydrogen reactor comprises a cell for making hydrinos…” [para. 0148].
Thus, although the claim does not expressly recite hydrinos or hydrino reactions, the specification associates the application of current through the intersecting streams with ignition of reactants, formation of the reaction plasma, and operation of the disclosed hydrino reactions (see, e.g., paras. [0148 and 0198-0199]. In other words, the disclosed and asserted utility of the claimed system depends upon the occurrence of the asserted hydrino reactions.
Therefore, although the claims do not specifically refer to hydrinos, the specification directly ties the disclosed utility to “hydrinos”.
Notwithstanding the implicit contradiction of an energy state below a “ground state”, which is by definition the lowest energy state a system can have, the existence of such hydrinos is inconsistent with established principles of physics and chemistry, thereby providing a reasonable basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to question the operability of the disclosed reaction and the credibility of the asserted utility.
(B) Support for factual findings relied upon in reaching this conclusion
In quantum mechanics (QM), 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 electron 1,2. In the Schrödinger equation, the lowest value the quantum number “n” may take is the integer 1, which is referred to as the “ground state” of hydrogen. As set forth 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. presents the Schrödinger equation for the radial wavefunction of the hydrogen atom and explains 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).
A. 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 (The grand unified theory of theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics “GUT”). A. Barth states that Mills’ theory disagrees with the traditional quantum theory of the hydrogen atom, as modeled by Bohr and Schrödinger. A. Barth states that the equations postulated by Mills’ replace the Schrödinger equation with a wave equation having solutions representing “traveling waves’ which is entirely different from the solutions to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom, which describe an atom held together by the electromagnetic attraction between proton and electron.3 A. Barth notes that Mills’ wave equation does not contain any terms which describe this electromagnetic force, and it doesn’t have “bound state” solutions which could potentially represent an electron physically attached to an atom.
A. Barth further noted that the Mills’ equation does not contain Planck’s constant “which appears in the Schrödinger equation and which sets the overall scale of the quantized energy levels of the atom. Without Planck’s constant and without the electromagnetic force, Mills’ wave equation can’t correctly predict the energy levels of hydrogen.”4
A. Barth states that Mills’ conclusion that the electron is confined to an infinitely thin spherical shell around the atom’s nucleus called the “orbitsphere” is theoretically inconsistent and at odds with experimental data as well. A. Barth states 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”. A. Barth further states that
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.”5 A. Barth concludes the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
332
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
614
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A. Rathke (“A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127) notes serious deficiencies and mathematical inconsistencies with Mill’s theory. Rathke notes applicant’s “grand unified theory of classical quantum mechanics” (CQM) proposes the existence of new lower-energy states of hydrogen atoms i.e., hydrinos, wherein 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 is at best the non-relativistic limit of a broader theory.6 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.”7 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, A. de Castro (“Orthogonality criterion for banishing hydrino states from standard quantum mechanics”, 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 r1+e for the Dirac case, are physically acceptable solutions” (abstract; p.6).
Dombey in “The hydrino and other unlikely states” (Aug 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, Dombey 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.”8
A. 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).
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) 9 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).10 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.” 11 Bagci examines adaptation of Slater type Orbitals for complete orthonormal basis sets for atoms and their generalization to non-integer quantum numbers (abstract).12 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, Dombey, Khelashvili et al., Phelps, Petrovic and Bagci are at least eleven independent, expert sources providing substantial evidence, implicitly or explicitly, that the asserted hydrino states are inconsistent with established principes 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 confirmation of the asserted hydrino states remains lacking 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. Further, 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).
Further support to the §101 rejection is provided by the following case laws:
> In re Blacklight Power Inc. v. Rogan, 63 USPQ2d 1534 (CA FC 2002), and
> In re Blacklight Power Inc. v. Dickinson (DC DC) 55 USPQ2d 1812.
The cited case laws refer to application no. 09/009294 filed by the same Applicant, which has been once allowed but the allowance subsequently withdrawn by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and has been finally rejected (01/07/2005).
Reference is also made to the Office’s findings in three of applicant’s earlier US applications directed to hydrino technology: 08/467,911, 12/153,613 and 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. 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 system of claim 1 implicitly includes hydrinos and/or hydrino reactions by the application of current to the intersecting streams of molten metal. As hydrinos are contrary to established science, the claimed invention lacks credible utility.
(C) Evaluation of all relevant evidence of record
The closest prior art of record US Pat.10,753,275 teaches a mechanical power system comprising “a) at least one source of nascent H2O; b) at least one source of atomic hydrogen; c) at least one of a conductor and a conductive matrix...and at last two electrodes that confine and connected to the high current source configured to conduct a high current through the fuel” (claim 1). However, this patent is to same inventor as the current application. Similarly, the identified publications supporting the asserted hydrino mechanism originate from the invention and/or associated researchers and therefore do not constitute independent confirmation of the asserted phenomenon. Nevertheless, these materials have been considered as par of the totality of evidence of record. The evidence does not outweigh the contrary evidence discussed above establishing a reasonable basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to question the asserted hydrino mechanism.
In summary, according conventionally accepted scientific principle, the existence of hydrogen with a binding energy corresponding to a value of “n” which is not an integer cannot be mathematically justified. Accordingly, hydrinos are inconsistent with and contrary to known principles of physics and chemistry, as evidenced by the current scientific literature. This alone would occasion reasonable skepticism as to operation of the invention. In re Newman, 782 P2d 971, 973 (Ped Cir.1986).
Further, the record does not contain persuasive independent, peer-reviewed information that supports the existence or production of the asserted hydrino states. Per MPEP 2107 G1(T1(3), “[o]ne situation where an assertion of utility would not be considered credible is where a person of ordinary skill would consider the assertion to be "incredible in view of contemporary knowledge" and where nothing offered by the applicant would counter what contemporary knowledge might otherwise suggest. The asserted utility of electrical and/or thermal power production from hydrinos could only be true if it violated 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).
For the foregoing reasons, the evidence of record provides a reasonable basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to question the asserted hydrino states and, consequently, the operability of the disclosed hydrino reaction. Because the specification attributes the asserted electrical and/or thermal energy production of the claimed system to that reaction, the asserted utility has not been shown to be credible.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are inoperative for their discloses and asserted utility and therefore fail to satisfy the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-5 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-ATA 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-AJA 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.
The instant specification discloses the claimed system as part of a power-generation system in which electromagnetic pumps inject streams of molten metal that intersect within a reaction environment. Electrical current is supplied to the intersecting streams of molten metal to ignite reactants and form a plasma. The specification specifically discloses that this arrangement is used to initiate and sustain the production of “hydrino” reaction products or “hydrino compounds” (paras. [0008-0009], [0015-0016], [0102-0103], [0233], [0417-0418] and [0459-0460]). The specification further attributes the production of electrical and/or thermal energy to the formation of these lower energy hydrino species.
Therefore, although not explicitly claimed, the system of claim 1, the disclosed utility in the specification is based on the occurrence of the asserted hydrino reaction. However, for the reasons discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 above, the asserted hydrino states and their production have not been shown to be credible or operative in view of established principles of physics and chemistry.
Accordingly, the specification does not enable one of ordinary skill to use the claimed invention to achieve the disclosed and asserter production of electrical and/or thermal energy through the asserted hydrino reaction.
Because the claimed invention has not been shown to be operative for its disclosed and asserted utility, the specification fails to teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to use the claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 1-5 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 “to produce the molten metal stream and an electromagnetic transverse to the current” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The limitation appears incomplete. The term “electromagnetic” on its own does not identify a structure, field force, or other claimed element. Therefore, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
The limitation “the inlet riser” in element (c) lacks antecedent basis. While the claim previously recites an “inlet” (see element (a)) there is no prior recitation of an inlet riser.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2
The limitation “the open-end conduit on the inlet has a greater diameter than the outlet pump tube diameter” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a pump tube having an outlet diameter.” There is no prior recitation of an outlet pump tube diameter. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is not clear if the “outlet pump tube diameter” recited in claim 2 corresponds to the previously recited outlet diameter, an inner or outer diameter of the pump tube itself, or another diameter associated with the outlet portion of the pump tube. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claims 3-5
Claims 3-5 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 L Pauling et al. “Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, With Applications to Chemistry”, Dover Publications, Inc.,
New York (1985), p.52.
2 R.Feynman et al., “The Feynman Lectures on Physics---Quantum Mechanics” Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
Reading Mass. (1965), p.19-1 & 19-5.
3 A.Barth, “Bigger than Fire? A Scientific Examination of Randell Mills’ “Hydrino” Theory”; Skeptic, 2001, p.42.
4 Ibid., p. 42-43.
5 Ibid., p. 43.
6 Rathke, “A critical analysis of the hydrino model” New Journal of Physics 7 (2005) 127, Eq.1. p.3.
7 Ibid., p.6.
8 N.Dombey, “The hydrino and other unlikely states”, Physics Letters A 360, p.62-65 (2006).
9Jonathan Phillips; 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.
10 A.V. Phelps et al. "Interpretation of EUV emissions observed by Mills et al." Eur. Phys. J. D 66, 120 (2012).
11 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.
12 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.
Prosecution Insights