DETAILED ACTION
1. In view of the appeal brief filed on 08/14/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below. (See MPEP 1207,.04)
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
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 .
This rejection replaces the office action issued on 11/14/2025
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
a first magnet is positioned adjacent the inlet and a second magnet is positioned adjacent the outlet” as recited in claim 1 lines 7, 8;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claim 1 includes “the liner acceleration channel being void of particles, subatomic particles and electromagnetic fields’.
An operating cyclotron cannot have a central region “void of electromagnetic fields” because: (a) cyclotrons operate by accelerating charged particles using oscillating electric fields and bending the particle trajectories using magnetic fields; (b) Faraday’s law of induction explains that a time-varying magnetic field must create an electric field; and (c) the Maxwell-Ampere Law explains that a changing electric field must create a magnetic field.
The claim requirement of a region completely “void of particles and subatomic particles” is scientifically impossible because (a) even the best ultrahigh vacuum chambers leave residual particles; and (b) no known method can produce a region with zero particles or subatomic particles.
Claim 1 includes “the mass is accelerated as it passes through the linear acceleration channel and the outlet as a result of the absence of frictional forces acting on the mass”.
This is impossible under Newtonian mechanics because: (a) acceleration requires a net external force (Newton’s second law); (b) if no external force is applied, an object cannot accelerate; and (c) the mere absence of a resisting force (such as friction) allows uniform motion, not increased velocity.
Claim 10 includes “the linear acceleration channel being void of particles, subatomic particles and electromatic field” and “the beam of light gains energy as it passes through the linear acceleration channel’.
Similar to the issue with claim 1 as discussed above, an operating cyclotron cannot have a central region “void of electromagnetic fields” because: (a) cyclotrons operate by accelerating charged particles using oscillating electric fields and bending the particle trajectories using magnetic fields; (b) Faraday’s law of induction explains that a time- varying magnetic field must create an electric field; and (c) the Maxwell-Ampere Law explains that a changing electric field must create a magnetic field.
Similar to the issue with claim 1 as discussed above, the claim requirement of a region completely “void of particles and subatomic particles” is scientifically impossible because (a) even the best ultrahigh vacuum chambers leave residual particles; and (b) no known method can produce a region with zero particles or subatomic particles.
Light cannot propagate in a region devoid of electromatic fields because light is an electromagnetic field. A photon is a propagating electromagnetic wave. It cannot exist in a region that is “void of electromagnetic fields’.
Light cannot gain energy without an external energy input. That is, a photon cannot gain energy by simply traveling through empty space.
Acceleration of light is impossible. Light in a vacuum always travels at c; it cannot speed up.
Claim 16 includes “the linear acceleration channel being void of particles, subatomic particles and electromagnetic fields’.
Similar to the issue with claim 1 as discussed above, an operating cyclotron cannot have a central region “void of electromagnetic fields” because: (a) cyclotrons operate by accelerating charged particles using oscillating electric fields and bending the particle trajectories using magnetic fields; (b) Faraday’s law of induction explains that a time- varying magnetic field must create an electric field; and (c) the Maxwell-Ampere Law explains that a changing electric field must create a magnetic field.
Similar to the issue with claim 1 as discussed above, the claim requirement of a region completely “void of particles and subatomic particles” is scientifically impossible because (a) even the best ultrahigh vacuum chambers leave residual particles; and (b) no known method can produce a region with zero particles or subatomic particles.
Claim 16 includes “the mass is accelerated as it passes through the linear acceleration channel and the outlet”.
Because this limitation requires acceleration in a region where all Known force- producing mechanisms are prohibited, it is impossible for the claimed mass to accelerate.
Also, the size of a cyclotron varies greatly, from a few inches for small amateur models to over 56 feet (17 meters) in diameter for large research facilities. Typical sizes depend on the application; for example, the first cyclotron was only 11 cm (4.3 inches) across, while a medical cyclotron can be 2.7 meters (8.9 feet) in diameter, and a major research cyclotron can be 1/7 meters (56 feet) across. However, applicant fails to disclose any dimensions. Also, applicant expresses an intention of carrying space vehicles through the central channel. There also what size of mass or space vehicle applicant want push through the central channel is not clear. Moreover, applicant fails to provide any details of the design of the linear accelerator and stack of cyclotrons.
Also, the operative principles of a linear accelerator and/or a cyclotron are different and a stack of cyclotrons do not form a linear accelerator due to their fundamental differences in their operations. A cyclotron radially accelerates particular subatomic particles electrons or protons or neutrons based on users requirement in medical research such as radiation therapies. However, a cyclotron can accelerate radially one subatomic particle with a specific design for electrons or protons or neutrons. All the subatomic particles cannot be accelerated at a time. There is no evidence in the literature yet. Hence, the principles applicant postulates (See summary of the specification) in this application lacks utility.
Hence, claims 1-18 are rejected.
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 1-18 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.
.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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.
A linear accelerator as claimed in claims 1-18 is not sufficiently disclosed.
A linear accelerator principle of working is different from a cyclotron accelerator. A cyclotron accelerates charged particles along a spiral path moving outward from the center. It uses constant magnetic field to bend the particles into circular trajectory and a rapidly varying RF electric field across a gap between two Dees for acceleration. The central channel of a cyclotron is where the ion source is typically located (See Fig 3 US Patent US 1948384 or US 4063125 or any non-patent literature articles on Cyclotrons). For each subatomic particle electro or proton or neutron, the acceleration mechanisms are different. Applicant failed to acknowledge this or explained in any possible way. However, reference number 22 as accelerated subatomic particles in the replaced drawing sheet Fig 2 makes the explanation more complicated.
It is not clear to examiner how the vacuum pumps are situated ?? how the Dees are situated ?? how the magnets are situated in each cyclotrons ?? How the interleaved electromagnets arranged between each set of dees of the plurality of cyclotrons ?? Is it a hypothetical idea ??
A linear accelerator can be used to introduce initial acceleration for particles before they are injected in to larger circular accelerators such as b synchrotrons. However, there is no need for using cyclotrons to remove the subatomic particles from the central zone of a linear accelerator. How acceleration is being achieved is not properly explained.
Also. no explanation has been provided on how the mass can be accelerated through the central channel when the central channel is injected with subatomic particles by ion sources in a cyclotron.
It is not clear on the dimensions of these cyclotrons and what is the gap dimension between Dees ? It is critical and based on that only the function of a cyclotron or linear accelerator depends. There is a critical length and beyond which it is difficult to operate.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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.
A linear accelerator as claimed in claims 1-18 is not sufficiently disclosed. Applicant claims a linear accelerator by arranging a stack of cyclotrons. Also, claims to accelerate a mass or light through the central channel of cyclotron. But do not discloses anywhere, how they are enabled except postulating some theories. There is no evidence in the known literature how this linear accelerator functions. Specification fails to provide any reasonable explanation for enablement of claimed device to an ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without explaining how a cyclotron central channel accelerates linearly when stacked together in a vertical direction, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See /n re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The dimensions of this device are critical to enable the claimed device. The disclosure do not bother to disclose these parameters. Also, applicant fails to address examiners questions on enablement during the interview. Hence, examiner rejects the claims 1-18 for failing to disclose the essential subject matter in the specification in such a way an ordinary skill can utilize the invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claimed invention is not supported by any evidence in the known scientific literature that it can deliver the claimed functions such as accelerating light passed through the central channel or claimed function of propulsion system for propelling the vehicle through the said atmosphere for space travel. No specific details provided for its enablement. Examiner has doubts about enablement because information is missing about one or more essential claim elements or relationships between the linear accelerator and cyclotron operations which one in the art could not develop without undue experimentation. A detailed explanation has been provided below.
.
Claims 1-18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial 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.
Enablement issues missing information in the disclosure : A specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023) (citing Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1916)). The fact that experimentation may be complex does not necessarily make it undue, if the art typically engages in such experimentation. /n re Certain Limited-Charge Cell Culture Microcarriers, 221 USPQ 1165, 1174 (Int'l Trade Comm'n 1983), affd. sub nom., Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. A.B. Fortia, 774 F.2d 1104, 227 USPQ 428 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. The test of enablement is not whether any experimentation is necessary, but whether, if experimentation is necessary, it is undue. /n re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA 1976).
A) The breadth of claims : The invention is lack of enablement. The linear accelerator claimed is a hypothetical device proposed by applicant. Applicant has not provided any theoretical evidence or experimental evidence except presenting some rough sketches and abstract ideas but not any concrete operable device for the utility claimed in claims 1-18, The breadth of claims are vague and beyond the scope of enablement for an ordinary skill in the art.
B) The nature of the invention: The non-obviousness, novelty, and utility expressed in the disclosure are lack of enablement. Note that not all subatomic particles can be accelerated in a cyclotron. The neutral neutron cannot be accelerated. So if only the charged subatomic particles are accelerated, (barring the inability of the cyclotron being to operate without an external vacuum pump to reduce pressure) the central channel will contain any number of non- accelerated non-ionized molecular, atomic and subatomic particles. This physical fact of nature completely discredits any possibility of meeting the limitation of: “thereby defining a linear acceleration channel within the central channel, the linear acceleration channel being void of particles’.
C) State of the prior art: No prior art is available. That does not mean this is a non-obvious patentable subject matter. The scientific terms used throughout the disclosure and claims do not match with conventional scientific terms. The disclosure is against the fundamental principles of working of a cyclotron and/or a linear accelerator.
D) The level of one of ordinary skill: No ordinary skill can enable the claimed invention based on the disclosure. Not even a skilled person in the art can enable this invention. Lot of essential information was not disclosed ant it is beyond the imagination of any skill in the art.
E) The level of predictability in the art: Even a skilled person in the art will wonder on the postulates of this disclosure. It is very hard to predict anything on the proposed device. The central channel of a cyclotron is where the ion source is typically located, and where the particles begin their initial, low- energy spiral path. It does not function as a linear accelerator. While they are different machines, LINACS are sometimes used to provide the _ initial acceleration for particles before they are injected into larger circular accelerators, such as synchrotrons, at major research facilities. However, a "stack of cyclotrons" does not form a linear accelerator in the central channel; cyclotrons and linear accelerators (LINACS) are distinct types of particle accelerators but not mass accelerators. Hence, the probability of predicting this kind of linear accelerators is ZERO in the known scientific literature. The background of the disclosure quotes irrelevant examples. Higgins field does not make any sense in the present device or method claimed.
F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant has failed to provide any direction on construction of the claimed equipment or how to operate the instruments except some _ theoretical predications and expectations. Even artificial intelligence can predict or provide anything out of this disclosure using the existing scientific knowledge.
G) The existence of working examples: No evidence of any working example in the known scientific literature.
H) The quantity of experimentation: The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of disclosure: Examiner has failed to understand the applicant’s invention. Examiner initiated interviews did not provide any useful information from the applicant except vague answers. It sounded like applicant has some ideas but could not convey in a scientific manner. Applicant has an abstract of idea of some theories about his proposed equipment but not in possession of this device. Moreover, examiner is under the impression this device is against the principles of a basic cyclotron and/or a linear accelerator based on the existing scientific literature. Even if an extra ordinary skill try to construct the proposed device it cannot be enable the way it was described and claimed in the instant disclosure. Hence, there is lot of undue experimentation in constructing and enabling the claimed device.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites linear accelerator, comprising: a plurality of cyclotrons arranged axially in a cyclotron stack, each cyclotron of the plurality of cyclotrons comprising a set of dees and a central aperture passing through the set of dees, wherein each central aperture of each said cyclotron is axially aligned with one another so as to form a central channel passing through the cyclotron stack, the central channel having an inlet and an outlet, and wherein a first magnet is positioned adjacent the inlet and a second magnet is positioned adjacent the outlet;
Claim 1 further recites that the central channel, the radially outward ejection of the subatomic particles thereby creating an augmented field vortex defining a linear acceleration channel within the central channel, the linear acceleration channel being void of particles, subatomic particles and electromagnetic fields and the linear acceleration channel having a central axis that is perpendicular to a direction of travel of the subatomic particles that are ejected radially outwardly of the cyclotron stack; and wherein, when a mass having a momentum enters the inlet of the central channel of the cyclotron stack, the mass is accelerated as it passes through the linear acceleration channel and the outlet as a result of the absence of frictional forces acting on the mass.
Examiner has unable to understand how this linear accelerator functions as it is not conventional linear accelerator. Similarly, the stack of cyclotrons with a central aperture through Dees of a cyclotron is unimaginable as the structure of cyclotron is inside a vacuum chamber and covered with two magnets on top and bottom of the dees. In the conventional cyclotron there is a gap between dees where ions (electrons or protons or neutrons) will be injected in order to accelerated at ultra-high vacuum inside the chamber. So it is not clear how the stack of vacuum chambers or magnets arrangement are not properly understood. The specification also, does not provide any clarity on its arrangement and operation. The size of a cyclotron varies greatly, from a few inches for small amateur models to over 56 feet (17 meters) in diameter for large research facilities. Typical sizes depend on the application; for example, the first cyclotron was only 11 cm (4.3 inches) across, while a medical cyclotron can be 2.7 meters (8.9 feet) in diameter, and a major research cyclotron can be 17 meters (56 feet) across. However, applicant fails to disclose any dimensions. Also, applicant expresses an intention of carrying space vehicles through the central channel (See the articles enclosed in NPL). The gap between the dees in a cyclotron should be small enough to allow charged particles to cross it and be accelerated, but large enough to prevent electrical breakdown. A typical gap size is a few millimeters, with the precise dimensions depending on the specific cyclotron design and the voltage being applied Also, claims do not claim the dimensions which are very critical. For example the aperture size or central channel passing through Dees is very critical and also, what size of mass or space vehicle applicant want push through the central channel is not clear. Moreover, applicant fails to provide any details of the design
of the linear accelerator and stack of cyclotrons. For an ordinary skill in the art, it is not clear on how this new or novel linear accelerator can be manufactured and being operated. Examiner seeks clarification. Hence, claim 1 and depending claims are rejected.
Claim 10, and Claim 16 and their depending claims are also rejected based on the same arguments on similar limitations.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The terms “ a Linear accelerator, plurality of cyclotrons, subatomic particles, central aperture through Dees, each central aperture of each said cyclotron in claims 1, claim 10 and claim 16 used by the claim to mean “a novel accelerator or novel cyclotron but not conventional LINAC or CYCLOTRON or related particles’ while the accepted meaning is “conventional LINAC/cyclotron/dees/aperture.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Hence, claims 1-16 are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends on claim 1 for power supply. This is improper format to write the dependency. It does not incorporate all of the elements of claim 1 — rather it only incorporate certain elements (power supply) of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
This office action replaces the previous office action mailed on 11/14/2025.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5.30 PM.
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, Regis J Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/Examiner, Art Unit 2844 11/20/2025