What can the USPTO record still certify about Secrecy Orders on energy inventions, and what can it no longer certify?

This archive slice only stabilizes a narrow, procedural meaning of what people often call classified patents in the energy space.

• USPTO MPEP §120 guidance dedicated to Secrecy Orders
• Secrecy Order tied to disclosure restrictions
• Secrecy Order can delay patent grant until removed
• Notifying letter described as detailing the effects
• USPTO CPC scope anchor: G21B Fusion Reactors definition pages

These points mark the stable edge of what the provided record can certify, without adding missing case files or statistics.

USPTO MPEP § 120 on the USPTO site: the documentary object that defines this archive slice

The record begins with a USPTO web page labeled as MPEP §120 and dedicated to Secrecy Orders. The page functions as published guidance rather than a single case file.

Its value here is simple. It pins the term Secrecy Order to USPTO practice language, not to general internet usage.

Inside the text, the page presents effects as procedural consequences of an order. The record does not present those effects as optional interpretations.

One effect is framed as a restriction on disclosure of the invention. The page ties that restriction to the existence of the order, not to the later fate of the application.

Another effect is presented as a delay to any patent grant until the secrecy order is removed. The page also points to a notifying letter as the place where the effects are detailed.

The documentary boundary is visible in that same reference to notice. The page asserts that the notifying letter details the effects, but the record here does not include an example letter.^[1]

This page can certify what USPTO guidance says a Secrecy Order does, but it cannot certify which inventions received one or how often. The next question becomes traceability to a specific order.

What the record says a Secrecy Order does, and what it does not explain

Within the provided USPTO guidance, a Secrecy Order is connected to restrictions on disclosure of the invention. That connection is procedural and does not rely on a claim about national security intent inside this archive slice.^[1]

The same guidance states that a Secrecy Order can delay patent grant until the order is removed. This establishes a concrete administrative consequence, but it does not provide an end-to-end example showing removal in a real case.^[1]

The guidance also states that the notifying letter details the effects of a Secrecy Order. The record here does not include that letter, so the specific wording and any case-specific instructions cannot be checked inside this dataset.^[1]

This archive slice also does not include the primary statutory text often associated with invention secrecy, referenced in the brief as 35 U.S.C. § 181–188. That absence blocks direct, in-archive quotation of the governing statute, even while the procedural guidance remains visible.

Why a public patent record cannot, by itself, certify a classified or suppressed energy filing

The record preserves a conflict that appears in common search behavior. Public lists of so-called free energy or over-unity patents are often presented as evidence of classification, but this archive slice contains no secrecy-order record tied to any specific filing.

That gap matters because a published patent record can coexist with a claim of secrecy in public conversation, while the documentation required to connect the two is missing here. In this dataset, there is no order-specific trail and no later rescission or declassification record for any individual energy invention.

A safe rule follows from the limits of the record. In this archive slice, a classified patent claim does not stabilize unless a verifiable secrecy-order record or an official declassification trail is present.

Energy scope without drift: USPTO CPC G21B as a documented fusion reactor boundary

The USPTO Cooperative Patent Classification includes a category labeled G21B for Fusion Reactors. This provides a grounded way to discuss at least one energy-domain subject area without sliding into unverified claims about other technologies.^[2]

That classification anchor does not certify anything about secrecy handling. A CPC category is a taxonomy label, not evidence that an application was subject to a Secrecy Order or any other restriction.

What CPC G21B defines, and what remains outside that definition

The CPC definition page for G21B describes reactors in which energy release is caused by the controlled fusion of atomic nuclei. It also includes thermonuclear fusion reactors as part of that scope.^[3]

This definition helps constrain language, but it does not establish operability for any invention and it does not function as a secrecy indicator. Within this archive slice, taxonomy and secrecy remain separate documentary objects.

FAS Invention Secrecy as a navigation surface, not a substitute authority

The record also includes a curated Invention Secrecy collection page hosted by FAS. In this dataset, its role is to map a topic area and point toward materials, not to replace USPTO guidance or supply missing case trails.^[4]

This archive slice does not extract official counts or case exemplars from that hub. It preserves only the fact of the collection page’s existence and its function as an index.

The three missing pillars that prevent a clean answer about classified energy patents

First, the primary statutory text referenced in the brief as 35 U.S.C. § 181–188 is not included in the validated source set. The legal authority cannot be quoted directly inside this archive slice.

Second, no official reporting or statistics on the number of secrecy orders, current or historical, appears in the provided materials. Any claim about scale cannot be anchored here.

Third, no traceable end-to-end example appears in this dataset showing an application placed under a Secrecy Order and later having that order removed. Without that chain, the mechanism can be described, but it cannot be demonstrated through a concrete case file in this slice.

Closure: what can still be certified, and why the record stops where it stops

The opening question asked what can still be certified about Secrecy Orders on energy inventions. The record can certify that USPTO guidance in MPEP §120 describes effects that include disclosure restrictions, delayed grant until removal, and a notifying letter that details those effects.

The record can also certify a narrow energy-domain taxonomy anchor. USPTO CPC includes G21B for Fusion Reactors, and its definition includes controlled fusion of atomic nuclei and thermonuclear fusion reactors.

What the record cannot certify is the claim implied by the phrase classified energy patents when used to point at specific inventions. This dataset contains no secrecy-order record tied to any named filing, no rescission or declassification trail, no official secrecy-order statistics, and no in-archive statutory text for 35 U.S.C. § 181–188.

So the archive stops at procedure and taxonomy, not at attribution. Any future expansion would need an order-specific document trail, along with the missing statutory text and official counts, before individual suppression claims can be tested.^[1]

---

FAQs (Decoded)

This record now files into the forbidden science archive, indexing documented mechanisms within the suppressed technology case files. For related documentary corridors, see the suppressed inventions case index.

Sources Consulted

1. USPTO, MPEP § 120 — Secrecy Orders webpage. uspto.gov, accessed 2025-02-17
2. USPTO, CPC Scheme page for G21B. uspto.gov, accessed 2025-02-10
3. USPTO, CPC Definition page for G21B. uspto.gov, accessed 2025-02-03
4. FAS, Invention Secrecy collection page. sgp.fas.org, accessed 2025-01-27