Patent Application 17687675 - Method of Generating Energy Using

Title: Method of Generating Energy Using Three-demensional Nanostructured Carbon Materials

Application Information

Invention Title: Method of Generating Energy Using Three-demensional Nanostructured Carbon Materials
Application Number: 17687675
Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-03-06T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-03-06T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 376
National Sub-Class: 156000
Examiner Employee Number: 91148
Art Unit: 3646
Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0153752🔗
US 0030112🔗

Office Action Text

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 .
Election/Restrictions
Regarding the restriction requirement between Groups I and II: Applicant’s arguments are persuasive; the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is withdrawn.
Regarding the election requirement among species: Applicant’s election of species D (graphene material is multiwalled carbon nanotubes) and species 2 (deuterium is in a gas phase) in the reply filed on 04/05/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). This election requirement is maintained.
All currently pending claims 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 are examined herein.
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 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 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, the 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 cold nuclear fusion. Claim 1, for example, recites
[a] method of generating 4He atoms and energy, said method comprising: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material with deuterium; and transmuting the deuterium to 4He atoms and energy.

Dependent claim 2 further delineates that the method is performed at 0°C, claim 10 recites a temperature range between 30 and 300°C, claim 11 recites “at or below room temperature,” claim 12 recites between 20 and -100°C, and claims 14-15 recite low energies of below 1 keV or below 100 eV.

Independent claims 39 and 46 recite substantially similar methods to claim 1.

Independent claim 28 recites

[a] method of generating radiation, said method comprising: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material with deuterium; and placing said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material in said deuterium for a time sufficient to generate radiation.

Dependent claims 35-36 further delineate that the method is performed at low energies of below 1 keV or below 100 eV.

The energy generating and element transmuting methods of claims 1, 39, and 46 and the radiation generating method of claim 28 all operate via cold fusion nuclear reactions, e.g., “The results presented herein are, in general, consistent with other reported low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) experimental results,” Specification at ¶ 57.

In the introduction paragraphs of the Specification (¶¶ 2–4), Applicant asserts that the present invention is for “producing commercially valuable non-ionizing radiation and isotopes” but acknowledges how all previous attempts at achieving said nuclear fusion reactions have failed:
“While nuclear energy remains a valuable alternative, various types of damaging ionizing radiation may be produced by radioactive decay, nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. For example, it is known that the negatively-charged electrons and positively charged ions created by ionizing radiation may cause damage in living tissue. If the dose is sufficient, the effect may be seen almost immediately, in the form of radiation poisoning,” ¶ 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 producing important isotopes “in an environmentally friendly way,” Specification at ¶ 4. The claimed energy- and isotope-generating methods require nuclear fusion without meeting the accepted and established conditions necessary for fusion to occur, known as the Lawson criterion1. For one, fusion on Earth requires temperatures several orders magnitude greater than 15 million degrees Celsius temperature at the sun’s core2. Mainstream nuclear science reckons that the requisite temperature for fusion on Earth is 100 million degrees Celsius or more3. 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. Specifically, claims 1-2 recite generating energy at 0 degrees Celsius, and the Specification makes it clear that the generated energy is the result of “inducing local nuclear fusion,” “Fusion of two deuterons,” “deuteron fusions were catalyzed by the carbon nanotubes,” and “the following reaction was dominate [sic]: D + D -> 4He + 23.8 MeV,” at ¶¶ 17, 49, 54, and 80, respectively.
Applicants envisage that the invention fulfills “a need to generate new sources of energy not based on fossil fuels,” Specification at ¶ 3. In addition to generating energy, the disclosed and asserted utilities include “producing commercially valuable non-ionizing radiation and isotopes, namely 4He, in an environmentally friendly way,” Specification at ¶ 4.
The Specification describes fusion activity observed in experimental settings (see the Specification at ¶¶ 59+), but does not demonstrate a release of energy greater than the amount of energy input, i.e., a net positive energy such as would be needed for the stated goal of “meeting current and future energy needs,” as stated in the Specification at ¶ 4. 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. The exceptionally modest conclusion of Applicant’s experiments, e.g., as presented in Table 2 in the disclosure, weighs in favor of finding that the claimed subject matter, if even operative, lacks the real-world value required by 35 U.S.C. 101.
Other publications and documents evidence a consensus in the scientific community that there is yet to be a fusion technique—thermonuclear (hot) or cold—capable producing an energy gain sufficient for practical applications. As noted Dylla4, 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, 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 community7,8.
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 (a) to be in possession of a nuclear fusion method that operates without the extreme temperatures needed for traditional fusion, and (b) that said method is so efficient as to be suitable for “meeting current and future energy needs,” would be found questionable to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
To accomplish these feats, Applicant’s method relies on the simple “contacting” of a 3-D carbon material with deuterium, per claims 1, 28, 39, and 46, at very low temperatures and energies, per claims 2, 10-12, and 35-36.
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 contacting carbon with deuterium 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.
To the contrary, the methods for generating helium-4, energy, and radiation as recited in the independent claims are repeatedly described as occurring in a relatively cold environment, e.g., at or below room temperature per claim 11.
The apparatus of the instant invention operates exclusively at low temperatures:
“at 0°C,” claim 2

“ranges from 30°C to 300°C,” claim 10

“at or below room temperature,” claim 11

“the step of contacting…is performed at a temperature ranging from 20°C to -100°C,” claim 12

“an energy of less than 1 KeV [sic],” claim 14

“an energy of less than 100 eV,” claim 15

“an energy of less than 1 KeV [sic],” claim 35

“an energy of less than 100 eV,” claim 36

about -80°C to 200°C, see results plotted in Figure 2

8°C to 32°C to 200°C, see results in Table 2

“The results presented herein are, in general, consistent with other reported low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) experimental results,” Specification at ¶ 57

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 -100 degrees Celsius to 300 degrees Celsius is equivalent to 173 Kelvin to 573 Kelvin. Therefore, Applicant’s invention fits squarely in the field of low-temperature nuclear reactions (LENR), or cold fusion.

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.

A review of the Specification shows that the success of the invention depends largely, if not entirely, on the inherent “unusual electronic structure” of graphene (carbon) materials:
“[I]t has been discovered that the single atomic layer of carbon, characteristic of graphene materials, effectively screens Coulomb interactions,” ¶ 52

Unfortunately, while the disclosure emphasizes the unique structure of 3-D carbon materials, no explanation is provided as to how the skilled artisan would take widely available carbon tubes and imbue them with the ability to cause nuclear fusion merely by being in contact with deuterium, as recited in claim 1. The statement in ¶ 52 that carbon “effectively screens Coulomb interactions” is a speculation made by Applicant, and Examiner cannot find any persuasive evidence supporting this theory. Examiner notes the unique structure of carbon is well-documented and praised for its many uses10, but cold nuclear fusion does not appear to be known to the scientific community as among them. In other words, the unique structure of graphene, despite being recognized for its many industrial uses, has not been proven to allow the ordinary skilled artisan to manipulate any possible Coulomb screening capabilities to the point of producing a method/system capable of causing cold nuclear fusion, as claimed by Applicant.

The claimed invention—a cold fusion scheme—for generating and maintaining a cold fusion reaction sufficient to be used as a viable energy source via the contact of carbon materials with deuterium (claim 1) is too undeveloped to be considered to have a body of existing knowledge associated with it, much less reproducibility of results. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d at 864 (“Here the PTO provided several references showing that results in the area of cold fusion were irreproducible. Thus the PTO provided substantial evidence that those skilled in the art would ‘reasonably doubt’ the asserted utility and operability of cold fusion”). Reproducibility must go beyond one’s own laboratory. One must produce a set of instructions—a recipe—that would enable a skilled artisan to produce and use the invention. If reproducibility occurs only in one’s own laboratory, errors (such as systematic errors) could reasonably be suspected. Applicant’s disclosure is insufficient as to how the embodiments described therein are based upon valid and reproducible methodology.
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 generate energy 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 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 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 energy, commercially valuable non-ionizing radiation, and isotopes from a nuclear fusion reaction is considered as being Applicant's specified utility (see Specification at ¶ 4). Applicant’s invention is claimed as operating at energy ranges (claims 14, 15, 34, and 35) and temperatures (claims 2, 10, 11, and 12) 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) useful-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 the success of the claimed invention requires carbon to exhibit a capability 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 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 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 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 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 1–4, 9–12, 14–16, 28–31, 35–36, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 are 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 viable nuclear fusion reactors have been unsuccessful (Specification, ¶¶ 3–4). Even so, Applicant believes they have produced an operative method for achieving nuclear fusion for useful energy production (“a method of meeting current and future energy needs,” Specification at ¶ 4) in a low-temperature environment (e.g., 0 degrees Celsius, claim 2).
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 claims to provide a low-energy nuclear reactor (LENR) are extremely broad, as evidenced by their lack of detail (e.g., clms. 1, 28, 39, and 46 simply recite “contacting” a carbon material with deuterium) as well as the fact that the alleged result of producing fusion energy necessarily abandons modern nuclear physics, to the extent that the alleged outcomes of said device cannot be reasonably predicted and measured.
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 source of commercial energy; as currently disclosed by Applicant, the cold fusion method 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 an assertedly new field subsector of nuclear fusion technology—cold fusion via carbon nanotube absorption of deuterium. Thus, the level of ordinary skill in the art is challenging to ascertain. The claimed technique is explicitly fusion at cold temperatures. Those generally 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 temperatures. Those skilled in the art would also understand that cold or low-energy nuclear fusion, from which the instant invention is 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 fails to cite adequate support for the underlying theory (a layer of carbon “effectively screens Coulomb interactions,” ¶ 52), and no rigorous experimental third-party results or other substantial supporting evidence is provided for the record.
See MPEP § 2164.03.

(G) The existence of working examples: A working example is provided (see Spec. ¶¶ 59+), but the person having ordinary skill in the art would find it unlikely that the observed outcomes are the result of nuclear fusion. 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 in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.

Claims 1, 3, 4, 9–10, 16, 28–31, 39–40, 42, and 46–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arata (WO2004034406A1 — US version 2006/0153752 A1 cited herein for convenience).

Regarding claim 1, Arata discloses a method of generating 4He atoms and energy, said method comprising: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63) with deuterium (“deuterium,” ¶ 54); and transmuting the deuterium to 4He atoms and energy (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15).

Regarding claim 3, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material comprise multilayer graphite, single walled carbon nanotubes, multiwalled carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, carbon onions, and carbon nanohorns (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63; Examiner notes that all carbon nanotubes are either single- or multi-walled).

Regarding claim 4, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said deuterium comprises a liquid or gas (e.g., “hydrogen isotope gas,” ¶ 72).

Regarding claim 9, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63), and said method further comprises heating the carbon nanotubes at a temperature and for a time sufficient to promote absorption of the deuterium into or onto the carbon nanotubes (e.g., “The reaction of deuterium generates high-temperature and high-pressure gas and helium gas in the reaction furnace,” ¶ 93).

Regarding claim 10, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally teaches a temperature range from 30°C to 300°C and a time from 30 minutes to 8 hours (as shown in Fig. 3, Arata’s temperature and time ranges overlap the recited ones).

Regarding claim 16, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material are placed in deuterium for a time ranging from 30 minutes to 48 hours (as shown in Fig. 3, Arata’s time range overlaps the recited one).

Regarding claim 28, Arata discloses a method of generating radiation, said method comprising: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63) with deuterium (“deuterium,” ¶ 54); and placing said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material in said deuterium for a time sufficient to generate radiation (e.g., D-D nuclear fusion reaction, ¶ 91, which creates gamma radiation11).

Regarding claim 29, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said radiation comprises x-rays, visible light, or combinations thereof (e.g., D-D nuclear fusion reaction, ¶ 91, which creates X-rays, as known in the art).

Regarding claim 30, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material comprise, multilayer graphite, single walled carbon nanotubes, multiwalled carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, carbon onions, carbon nanohorns and combinations thereof (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63; Examiner notes that all carbon nanotubes are either single- or multi-walled).

Regarding claim 31, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein the deuterium is in a liquid, gas, plasma, or supercritical phase (e.g., “hydrogen isotope gas,” ¶ 72)..

Regarding claim 39, Arata discloses a method of inducing nuclear transmutation, comprising the steps of: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63) with deuterium (“deuterium,” ¶ 54); and placing said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon in deuterium for a time sufficient to transmute said deuterium and generate primarily a plurality of 4He atoms and energy (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15).

Regarding claim 40, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63).

Regarding claim 42, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said deuterium is a gas (e.g., “hydrogen isotope gas,” ¶ 72).

Regarding claim 46, Arata discloses (e.g., ¶ 40) discloses a method of generating energy, comprising: contacting three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material (“a carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63) with deuterium (“deuterium,” ¶ 54); and transmuting said deuterium to produce a plurality of 4He atoms and energy (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15).

Regarding claim 47, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material comprises carbon nanotubes (“carbon nanotube,” ¶ 63).

Regarding claim 48, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim, and additionally teaches wherein said deuterium is a gas (e.g., “hydrogen isotope gas,” ¶ 72).
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 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.
For Applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection, it is noted that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.

This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 14, 15, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata.

Regarding claim 2, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim and additionally discloses wherein 4He is generated in an amount of said three-dimensional nanostructured carbon material (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15) but does not explicitly recite the claimed rate or the temperature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try a production rate of at least ten 4He atoms per hour per microgram and to do so at 0°C, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable (this case, production rate and temperature) involves only routine skill in the art.

Regarding claim 14, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim including the production of 4He atoms (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15) but does not explicitly disclose their energy value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced 4He atoms having an energy of less than 1 keV, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable (this case, energy value) involves only routine skill in the art. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata at low energy levels in order to protect the delicate equipment from damage or because fusion at higher temperatures was known to require a large, complex, and expensive enclosure.

Regarding claim 15, Arata teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the production of 4He atoms (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15) but does not explicitly disclose their energy value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced 4He atoms having an energy of less than 100 eV, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable (this case, energy value) involves only routine skill in the art. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata at low energy levels in order to protect the delicate equipment from damage or because fusion at higher temperatures was known to require a large, complex, and expensive enclosure.

Regarding claim 35, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim including the production of 4He atoms (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15) but does not explicitly disclose their energy value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced 4He atoms having an energy of less than 1 keV, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable (this case, energy value) involves only routine skill in the art. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata at low energy levels in order to protect the delicate equipment from damage or because fusion at higher temperatures was known to require a large, complex, and expensive enclosure.

Regarding claim 36, Arata teaches all the elements of the parent claim including the production of 4He atoms (“the at least two hydrogen isotope atoms are reacted with each other to generate a helium molecule in addition to the heat,” ¶ 15) but does not explicitly disclose their energy value. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have produced 4He atoms having an energy of less than 100 eV, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result-effective variable (this case, energy value) involves only routine skill in the art. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata at low energy levels in order to protect the delicate equipment from damage or because fusion at higher temperatures was known to require a large, complex, and expensive enclosure.

Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata in view of “WO301” (WO 90/0030112).

Regarding claim 11, Arata anticipates all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose that the method is performed at or below room temperature. WO301 does. WO301 is in the same art area of cold fusion reactors and teaches a method for alleged cold fusion (“fusion,” claim 1) using deuterium gas (“the nuclear fusion fuel is deuterium,” claim 2) at or below room temperature (“the gas temperature is below room temperature,” claim 8). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata below room temperature in order to protect the delicate equipment from damage or because fusion at higher temperatures was known to require “installations of such enormous size and complexity that only the richest and technologically most advanced nations can afford them,” WO301, page 1.

Regarding claim 12, the above-described combination of Arata with WO301 teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and WO301 additionally teaches wherein the deuterium-fueled nuclear fusion method is performed at a temperature ranging from 20°C to -100°C (“the gas temperature is below room temperature,” claim 8). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to perform the method of Arata at or below 20°C for the reasons cited above in response to claim 11.

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.
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 “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 accessed May 12, 2025.
2 Id.
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>. Last accessed May 12, 2025.
6 Achieving Fusion Ignition. <lasers.llnl.gov/science/achieving-fusion-ignition>. Last accessed May 12, 2025.
7 Tollefson, Jeff, and Elizabeth Gibney. "Nuclear-fusion lab achieves ‘ignition’: What does it mean?." Nature 612.7941 (2022): 597-598.
8 Thomas, William. National Ignition Facility Achieves Long-Sought Fusion Goal. Dec 16 2022. AIP News article.
9 Temperatures for Fusion, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Georgia State University webpage.
10 e.g., “Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have demonstrated extraordinary electronic, optical, and mechanical and integrated into functional devices such as integrated circuits, biomedical imaging and sensing, electromechanical systems, and super-stretchable ropes for three decades” and see Figure 1 from Zhang et al. Emerging Internet of Things driven carbon nanotubes-based devices. <sciopen.com/article/10.1007/s12274-021-3986-7>. Last accessed May 12, 2025.

11 “deuterium atoms fuse and forming helium-4 which has a lot of energy - so much energy that it is unstable, so the atom discharges some of this energy by releasing a neutron, proton, or gamma ray” <undsci.berkeley.edu/teach-resources/products-of-deuterium-fusion>. Last accessed May 12, 2025.
12 See the attached 36-page foreign reference.