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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-3 & 5-6 are pending.
Applicant's remarks, Pg. 4-12 of the response filed 9/24/2025 do not advance any new arguments relative to the response filed 1/17/2025, and the claims have not been amended. Examiner maintains the positions set forth in the Office action mailed 3/25/2025.
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 1-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure lacks a description of how the first and second pressures, wherein the second pressure is greater than the first pressure, are possible in view of Pascal’s law. The specification (see Paras. [0052]-[0056] of the published application) and Claims 1-3 & 5 (e.g. Claim 1, Lines 2-4, 5-6, & 15-25) seek to apply hydrokinetic principles to a hydrostatic system, which renders the device inoperative i.e. the pistons would be locked in place and the transmission member would not transmit energy. The energy conversion mechanism includes first (6), second (13), and connecting (44) cylinders, and their pistons (7, 46, 40, 41), which constitute a closed volume hydrostatic system. The principle of operation described and claimed violates Pascal's Law (i.e. A change in pressure at any point in an enclosed fluid at rest is transmitted undiminished to all points in the fluid. Pressure exerted on a fluid in an enclosed container is transmitted equally and undiminished to all parts of the container and acts at right angle to the enclosing walls. Alternate definition: The pressure applied to any part of the enclosed liquid will be transmitted equally in all directions through the liquid.), which prevents a first and second pressure from being different. Acceleration and deceleration of the energy conversion mechanism must be considered as a whole because there is no relative motion between the energy conversion mechanism and the contained fluid, thus the acceleration and deceleration of the fluid is effectively zero. Further, if the fluid volume did achieve an acceleration/deceleration relative to the cylinders, perhaps due to an air gap in a liquid volume, in either case, a pressure differential in the hydrostatic volume would not be produced and the pistons would not move. Changing the pressure in the closed hydrostatic volume requires an input, which changes the enclosed volume of the energy conversion mechanism, that the described and claimed system lacks.
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 1-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 is indefinite because it incoherently intermingles two separate, but simultaneous, processes (i.e. first process is described in Paras [0047]-[0051], second process is described in Paras [0052]-[0056]) that require different apparatus including different fluid volumes in different cavities, and further unrecited mechanisms, which renders the scope of the claim unascertainable. Claim 1 should be corrected to distinctly define the processes and required apparatus.
Claims 2-3 & 5-6 are rejected due to their dependence from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 & 5-6, as far as they are definite, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipate by Bassi et al (10823135).
Bassi et al disclose:
1. An inertia-based energy storage method working with an inertia-based energy storage device, the inertia-based energy storage device comprising a cavity accommodating fluid, a kinetic energy recovery device and a transmission member driven by pressure of the fluid accommodated in the cavity, the method comprising: accelerating the fluid accommodated in the cavity; and applying, by the kinetic energy recovery device, deceleration resistance to the fluid accommodated in the cavity to decelerate the fluid after the accelerating, wherein in the process of the decelerating, the kinetic energy recovery device recovers the kinetic energy of the fluid while it is decelerated, and wherein in the process of accelerating or decelerating the fluid accommodated in the cavity, pressure of the fluid is increased from a first pressure to a second pressure depending on a rate of change in velocity of the fluid and a state of motion of the fluid, by the acceleration of the fluid; after the pressure of the fluid accommodated in the cavity is increased from the first pressure to the second pressure by the acceleration of the fluid, the transmission member is driven by fluid pressure energy generated in the fluid under the second pressure, so that the fluid pressure energy generated in the fluid under the second pressure is additionally extracted by the transmission member before completion of the recovery of the kinetic energy by the kinetic energy recovery device, wherein the first pressure is lower than the second pressure (e.g. Figs. 1-3 & 6).
2. The inertia-based energy storage method according to claim 1, further comprising: utilizing energy generated by the kinetic energy or the pressure energy to drive a generator (128) to make the generator generate electrical energy.
3. The inertia-based energy storage method according to claim 1, wherein, the fluid is liquid or compressed gas (e.g. water).
5. The inertia-based energy storage method according to claim 1, wherein, the transmission member comprises a piston (e.g. Fig. 5).
6. The inertia-based energy storage method according to claim 2, wherein the generator is an alternating-current generator (e.g. 128).
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 MICHAEL LESLIE whose telephone number is (571)272-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 am - 4-30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/MICHAEL LESLIE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
October 31, 2025