DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 11/617,632, filed 12/28/2026, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
In specific, the current application claims sensing operations, control operations in relation to the sensing operations as well as alternating current pulses that increase the density of an input material closer to the core surface than to the center.
There is no support for these limitations. As such the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 7/18/2025.
If Applicant believes this to be incorrect, a detailed account of where in the specification support for these limitations exist.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites sensing one or more of the operating conditions and responsive to the sensing, modifying an operating parameter.
There is no implicit or explicit control of current pulses utilized in the alternative direction nor the loading pulses by a sensing condition and then control of those parameters.
Additionally there is no support that the alternating current pulses are associated with an increase in density of the input material closer to the surface of the core than to the center of the core.
As per the printed application, the loading pulse width is an indirect control on the density and depth of the loading in the reaction matrix ([0085]).
The only recitation to alternative direction current pulses is towards the quantum pulses. The quantum pulse is the creation of free, low-energy, high-cross-section neutrons. The quantum pulses are responsible for initiating phonons in the reaction matrix, imparting additional energy to the system, filling available conduction and valance band orbitals to effect quantum compression, and increase the density of electrons available for electron capture, and consequent low-energy, high-cross-section neutrons ([0088]).
Accordingly the quantum current is not for increasing the density of the input material at the surface of the core, but instead being used to generate free neutrons that then react with the hydrogen nuclei to perform fusion reactions ([0089] – [0092]).
Control of the quantum pulses can be to adjust or tune the phonon creation and energy levels which are, again, directed to the fusion reactions ([0092] – [0096]).
It is noted that the closest language to the quantum pulses effecting the loading mechanism in paragraph [0097]. This states that the pulse dead time is when the direction of the quantum pulse is reversed (alternated). The quantum pulse direction alternation provides for uniform loading of the core. Unidirectional quantum pulsing results in proton migration in the core, leading to a potential gradient in the core and non-uniform heating.
This, again, does not support the increase in the density of the input material at the surface of the core. Instead is supports a uniform loading to the core. Uniform meaning there is no gradient to the input material. No other language in the specification discussing the quantum pulses being used for any version of loading operation or alteration of the density of the input material in relation to special relationship in the core material.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 6,638,413 of Weinberg.
As to claim 1, Weinberg teaches of a method, the method comprising:
introducing an input material into a core comprising a transition metal lattice by applying electrical pulses (loading pulses) to the core (Weinberg, col 6 lines 20-64, col 7 lines 27-44, col 11 lines 44-63 and Fig. 5);
applying current pulses to the core in alternating directions to increase a density of the input material closer to a surface of the core than to a center of the core (Weinberg, col 7 line 45 thru col 8 line 39, Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein a start time of the loading pulse is offset from a start time of the current pulses in the alternating directions by a controllable offset amount (Weinberg, col 7 line 27-44 and Fig. 1).
Weinberg additionally teaches that the system can be varied to control the pulse width and interpulse time by measuring the operating parameters of the system with sensors (Weinberg, col 12 lines 10-16).
Weinberg does not specifically teach that responsive to the sensed conditions, modify an operational parameter of the system, however, this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in relation to Weinberg.
Weinberg teaches that the loading pulse amplitude can be between 1 to 10 volts and that the pulsed current can be variable between 0.5 microseconds to 20 microsecond with pulse off time (interpulse time) variable between 30 microsecond to 1200 microseconds (Weinberg, col 6 lines 36-49 and col12 lines 1-5).
Weinberg teaches that the pulsed system generates excessive heat in the pulsed regimes (Weinberg, col 12 line 50 thru col 13 line 25) such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modulate the pulsed operating parameters to control any excessive heating that is detrimental to the system by the control mechanisms therein.
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Weinberg to actively control the operational parameters of the pulsed current based on the sensed conditions of the cell system in order to mitigate detrimental heat generation within the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
424
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Weinberg teaches the input material comprises hydrogen (Weinberg, col 6 lines 20-36).
As to claims 3 and 4, Weinberg teaches the transition metal lattice comprises palladium, palladium alloys, nickel, nickel alloys and palladium/silver (Weinberg, col 3 line 65 thru col 4 line 3).
As to claims 5 and 6, Weinberg the loading pulses cause water electrolysis to dissociate water to hydrogen and oxygen and drive the input material (hydrogen) into the core (Weinberg, col 6 lines 20-64).
As to claim 7, Weinberg teaches the core (cathode) comprises a wire configuration (Weinberg, col 11 lines 53-57 and Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
574
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Weinberg teaches the loading pulses have an amplitude between 1 to 10 Volts (Weinberg, col 6 lines 36-39).
As to claim 10, Weinberg teaches the rest potential (i.e. dead time between alternating current pulses) is on the order of seconds to minutes which allows for maximizing absorption of the hydrogen, thus deeming obvious the claimed range (Weinberg, col 7 lines 51-55).
As to claim 11, Weinberg teaches the pulsed current has an amplitude of twice the amplitude of the loading pulses, thus being between 2 and 20 volts (Weinberg, col 6 lines 36-39 and col 7 lines 1-22).
As to claim 13, Weinberg teaches the core (cathode) is immersed in a liquid (Weinberg, col 11 lines 44-63 and Fig. 5).
As to claim 14, Weinberg teaches the sensing is done by a voltmeter, thus by measuring voltages across connection points (Weinberg, col 12 lines 10-16).
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,411,654 of Ahern et al.
As to claim 9, Weinberg teaches to the method of claim 1.
Weinberg does not teach the frequency of the current pulses.
Ahern teaches of increased density of guest interstitial species such as hydrogen within host species like a metal matrix by electrolytic processes (Ahern, col 1 line 56 thru col 2 line 45, col 7 lines 51-63 and 22 lines 3-14).
Ahern teaches the frequency of the current pulses is up to about 2 KHz which facilitates enhanced anharmonicity to yield increased density of the guest species within the host matrix (Ahern, col 2 lines 19-45 and col 22 lines 3-14).
Although the range of the frequency does not overlap that of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the frequency obvious as the result of the frequency generating the same property induced within the core material (i.e. densification of the guest material within the host).
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Weinberg as per Ahern so as to utilize the desired frequency of current pulses in increasing the density of the guest material within the host metal matrix.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0206715 of Godes.
As to claim 12, Weinberg teaches to the method of claim 1.
Weinberg does not teach the offset amount is between 100 ns to 5000 ns.
Godes teaches of electrolytic loading of a core with a guest composition (Godes, [0083]).
Godes additionally teaches that an offset amount of the loading pulses is between 0 to 25,000 ns or between 100 ns to 5000 ns which allows for sufficient loading of the hydrogen into the metal matrix (Godes, [0096] – [0097] and [0110] – [0111]).
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Weinberg as per Godes so as to utilize the desired offset time in order to facilitate loading of the metal matrix with the hydrogen species.
As to claim 15, Weinberg teaches to the method of claim 1.
Weinberg does not teach the specifics of the alternating current generation.
Godes teaches of electrolytic loading of a core with a guest composition (Godes, [0083]).
Godes teaches that electrolytic pulses can be generated by connection of the core through a center-tapped transformer configuration, by field effect transistors in a half-bridge configuration or by a capacitor which allows for uniform loading of the core material (Godes, [0045] – [0049]).
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Weinberg as per Godes to utilize the desired system configuration in order to provide uniform loading to the core material.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0404078 of Srinivasan et al
As to claim 16, Weinberg teaches to the method of claim 1.
Weinberg does not teach the utilizing the change in impedance of the core to modify operating parameters of the system.
Srinivasan teaches of health and performance of electrochemical systems (Srinivasan, [0001]).
Srinivasan additionally teaches that the impedance within the system (including the electrodes) is monitored such that operational parameters are changed in order to maintain the health and performance of the system at hand (Srinivasan, [0018] - [0022] and [0066] – [0071]).
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, it would have been obvious to modify Weinberg as per Srinivasan so as to utilize the desired control parameter by monitoring the impedance of the system in order to maintain the health and performance of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7961. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 am to 5 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
BRIAN W. COHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/BRIAN W COHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights