DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
A Letter Requesting Suspension of Action was received by the Office on December 11, 2025. In this letter, Applicant requests a suspension of action for a period of six months under 37 C.F.R. 1.103(c). According to MPEP 709 (b), under 37 C.F.R. 1.103(c), Applicant may only request a suspension of action for a period not exceeding three months. As a result, a suspension under 37 CFR 1.103(c) was granted for 3 months from December 11, 2025 through March 11, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present invention creates a “Virtual Barrier” that annihilates time, allowing the discovery of “Temporal Energy”. It is never explained by Applicant what a virtual barrier is. Pages 8 and 14 of the Specification describe it as a line and a tangent (a type of line), respectively. It is as yet unknown how anything that is considered to be virtual, as Applicant considers this virtual barrier, is able to affect anything in the real world. Additionally, describing it as a line as Applicant does reinforces that this virtual barrier does not exist in the real world since a line is only considered to be one-dimensional and cannot be realized in three-dimensional space as a real thing. Applicant has stated that the barrier is a fence or obstacle and made of a solid material, yet this is never mentioned in the Specification and would be considered New Matter if amended into the Specification or Claims and is not considered when interpreting the Specification or Claims. Interpretation of the Claims is restricted to what was in the original disclosure which only describes a virtual barrier, not a physical barrier.
Applicant never discloses how it is possible to annihilate time or what “Temporal Energy” is, only that time is annihilated and “Temporal Energy” is discovered. In addition to this, “Temporal Energy” is not found in the Specification or the Claims.
Applicant argues that explanation of details “only unnecessarily complicates the specification, which is unacceptable as mathematical language is more concise than just wording”. While Examiner agrees that mathematical equations can be more concise than wording, Examiner would argue that when Applicant describes annihilating time and creating a new type of energy (Temporal Energy), that a thorough explanation is not only desirable, but necessary. This is especially true when equations have errors in them, as Applicant has proposed.
Applicant argues that an error was made in the equation found in Figure 7B, and cites an error in translation form the original French, yet not only has Applicant failed to provide the French document to allow Examiner to confirm this assertion, but Applicant refers to pressure with the variable “P” at least on pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Additionally, given that the SI system of measurement (Système International) has been the standard in France for decades, and the SI uses the Newton (N) for units of force and the Pascal (Pa) for units of pressure, and that neither of these are in the equation in question, the only conclusion to be reasonably made is that the “P” variable in the equation is for pressure. It also does not stand to reason that the equation would use “P” to mean force in the beginning of the equation and “F” to mean force at the end of the equation.
Additionally, Examiner wishes to point out further evidence that the instant invention cannot be carried out. In at least Figure 7b, there is a nonsensical equation which reads as follows:
P
=
1
2
ρ
π
ω
2
r
4
=
2
F
Simplifying this equation, we get the following:
P=2F
This equation equates pressure (P) to force (F). The unit for pressure is
N
m
2
and the unit for force is N. It is easy to see an error in this equation since
N
m
2
≠N.
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 and 3-5 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. The subject matter of the claims attempts to define a perpetual motion machine. This is a mechanism which produces energy without any energy being added resulting in a machine which produces more energy than is supplied to it and therefore violates the first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy). Given that the claims violate the first law of thermodynamics, and such a machine is considered impossible, the claims are in no way enabled.
MPEP 2164.01 establishes the analysis required to determine whether the filed disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The factors to be considered to determine whether any necessary experimentation is undue, also known as The Wand factors, see In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include, but are not limited to:(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.
With regard to claims 1 and 3-5, after analyzing the application with the above factors, Examiner has concluded that there is no enabling disclosure for a closed system that violates the first law of thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy). The level of one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to produce such a machine based on the disclosure as there is no direction or evidence provided by the Applicant as to how this is achieved. Examiner does not believe there are any working examples of such a machine and the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is too great to comprehend.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility. In the description of the present application, it is implied that the apparatus produces a surplus of energy when the only energy introduced to the system is the amount of energy needed to start the apparatus and to compensate for loss of energy of hydraulic and mechanical origin (page 3 lines 27-30).
However, it is not understood or appropriately explained where the energy for propulsion comes from.
The system can provide propulsion only in as much as the motor not only compensates for the loss of energy of hydraulic and mechanical origin but also supplies propulsive energy itself. That aspect is not present in the present application, leading the Examiner to conclude that the subject matter of the claims focuses on a perpetual motion machine.
The application does not credibly explain how the mechanical energy for propulsion can be obtained e.g., there is no shaft transmitting power in the form of torque and rotational motion.
This position is supported by the following as found in the specification:
In the Specification, page 4 lines 27-28, page 5 lines 24-25, page 12 lines 1-9 plainly states that the pump (element 2 in Fig. 1) powers the turbine (element 1 in Fig. 1) and that the turbine powers the pump. This means that the pump drives the turbine and the turbine drives the pump. The law of conservation of energy does not allow this to continue without energy being input into the system and it is known that the motor (element 10 in Fig. 1) does not provide this energy because page 3 lines 27-30 states that the motor "is used to set in motion and to compensate for the loss of hydraulic and mechanical energy", meaning that the motor does not provide energy to drive the system.
It is by nature impossible to carry out the present invention correctly because it would go against well-established laws of physics. For this reason, the present invention cannot be carried out by a person having ordinary skill in the art and is therefore not enabled.
Although no art rejection is being put forth at this time, patentability is reserved pending Applicant’s response to the 35 U.S.C. 112 and 101 rejections above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673