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 .
Requirement for Information under 37 C.F.R. 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that Examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
In response to this requirement, please provide copies of any technical disclosures of the invention before the effective filing date. Specifically, the YouTube videos titled “Unitsky’s Sky Ways Film” (2016) and “To The Sky By Wheel” (1989) are not technical disclosures, but appear to generally show many of the concepts of the invention including the expanding ring, bellows, electromagnetic tracks, and first flywheel concepts. Accordingly, additional information is requested regarding any technical disclosures made concerning the information provided in the 1989/2016 videos, in particular the mechanism described to decelerate the vehicle, such as a second flywheel, and the use of a counter-rotating flywheel system.
Examiner notes that although the second flywheel is not explicitly discussed in the voiceover of the video “Unitsky’s Sky Ways Film”, the invention shown in the video has two channels, each having a linear flywheel, just as is shown in Fig. 5 of the instant application. Therefore, any document or other material deemed pertinent to this configuration made available to the public before August 1, 2018 is requested.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
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 12-16 and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either an asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The claims recite a method of payload insertion and reentry that purportedly launches a general planetary vehicle encircling a planet from the surface of said planet by accelerating a linear flywheel to a velocity greater than a cosmic velocity, lifting the payload into a circular orbit due to centrifugal force, decelerating the linear flywheel while introducing acceleration of a second linear flywheel in a co-rotational direction to maintain zero radial velocity in order to unload transportation compartments in space, and then returning the general planetary vehicle into an initial launch position by deceleration of the first linear flywheel and acceleration of the second linear flywheel to receive zero circumferential velocity in relation to the planet (claims 12, 18, and 19).
The examiner has carefully studied the invention in view of the above asserted utility by examining the operation of the claimed structure, which has revealed clearly and conclusively that there is good reason to question the truth of the statement of the asserted utility because the structure of the system, as disclosed and claimed, is inoperative and a person skilled in the art would not consider the asserted utility as credible or that the claimed structure has any specific and substantial utility, since the claimed system operation incorrectly relies upon lifting the general planetary vehicle “centrifugally”. Unlike forces like gravity or electromagnetism, centrifugal force doesn't arise from the interaction between objects, it's an effect of observing motion from a rotating perspective. From an inertial frame of reference, the apparent outward acceleration is simply due to inertia – the tendency of an object to resist changes in motion. That is, accelerating the general planetary vehicle to spin around a planet at incredible speed will not produce a “centrifugal force acting vertically” (Para. [0165] of Applicant’s specification) that will allow it to lift into orbit. The same is true regarding the ability to lower the general planetary vehicle back to its initial launch position.
Furthermore, in regard to new claim 18, the examiner has carefully studied the invention in view of the above asserted utility by examining the operation of the claimed structure, which has revealed clearly and conclusively that there is good reason to question the truth of the statement of the asserted utility because the structure of the system, as disclosed and claimed, is inoperative and a person skilled in the art would not consider the asserted utility as credible or that the claimed structure has any specific and substantial utility, since the claimed system operation incorrectly relies upon launching the GPV from a line in a plane parallel to a plane of an equator. All bodies that orbit a planet must orbit around the planet’s center of mass, which is not possible if launched from a plane parallel to the plane of the equator.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that the claimed structure will perform as stated in the asserted utility, i.e., that the flywheels will accelerate the general planetary vehicle to a velocity greater than a cosmic velocity, thereby lifting the vehicle centrifugally and launching into space, and then lowering the vehicle back into an initial launch position, as well as launching from a plane parallel to a plane of an equator. Evaluation of the disclosure clearly shows that the claimed structure has an “incredible utility” and the burden of proof is now shifted to the applicant to show otherwise. When a patent applicant presents an application describing an invention that contradicts known scientific principles, or relies on previously undiscovered scientific phenomenon, the burden is on the examiner simply to point out this fact to the applicant. The burden then shifts to the applicant to demonstrate either that the invention, as claimed, is operable or does not violate basic scientific principles, or that those basic scientific principles are incorrect. As stated by the Patent Office Board of Appeals: Newman v. Quigg 681 F. Supp 16, at18, 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1880(1988).
The applicant is required to furnish a working model of their invention to demonstrate its operability. See MPEP 608.03; 37 CFR 1.91.
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 12-16 and 18-27 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.
Additionally, claims 12-16 and 18-27 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. Examiner respectfully notes that Page 13 of Applicant’s remarks dated 11/25/2024 even suggests that Applicant does not reasonably have possession of the present invention – “the creation of the GPV described in the application is a global task… and, accordingly, requires the development of a whole complex set of subtasks… The application considers only general issues of the GPV structure; in the future, it is planned to patent individual specific modules and systems of the GPV, providing for a more detailed approach”.
Applicant has not provided adequate written description that the claimed structure is capable of accelerating the GPV to a velocity greater than cosmic velocity. While the claims generically recite the method for “a planet”, Examiner notes that Applicant would need to accelerate to 11.2 km/s (just over 25,000 mph) to escape Earth and 1.3 km/s (about 2,500 mph) to escape Pluto (SmartConversion.com), for example, with other planets in our solar system having either similar, or far higher values. Applicant has not provided evidence that the flywheel system is capable of accelerating to these speeds. As best understood by Examiner, the maglev train is the most similar transportation vehicle to Applicant’s invention in use today. The fastest maglev train to date, the Yamanashi Test Track, has a maximum speed of 375 mph (Wikipedia.com), which is only 15% of the required speed to overcome cosmic velocity on the smallest planet in our solar system.
Applicant fails to provide adequate written description regarding the ability for the GPV to launch into orbit. Specifically, the method of claim 12 recites “executing a launch of the general planetary vehicle”, “lifting the payload of a total mass m3, kg, with use of the linear bearing structure of the general planetary vehicle on a planned circular orbit of the altitude H, m, centrifugally, due to action of at least one linear flywheel”, and “lowering an altitude of deployment of the linear bearing structure of the general planetary vehicle from a circular orbit of the altitude H, m, over the planet surface, to a value h, m”, which is not adequately supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, Applicant states in Para. [0165] of the specification that “the centrifugal force acting vertically” will cause the GPV to lift off the surface of the planet and into orbit. Examiner respectfully notes that centrifugal force is not a real force that is acting upon the GPV, especially not in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the planet. As best understood by Examiner, Applicant is referring to the force exerted in a direction tangential to the surface of the planet (i.e., increasing the velocity of the GPV around the equator of the planet), causing the GPV to overcome gravity and launch to orbit. However, this concept of a planetary ring launching in such a fashion is not adequately supported by Applicant’s disclosure. Examiner notes that in the case a traditional satellite, for example, a burn may be performed in a direction tangential to the satellite’s current orbit in order to move to another orbit. However, when satellites thrust to change orbit, they cannot move from one circular orbit to another in a single burn. Changing from one circular orbit to another typically involves maneuvers such as Hohmann transfers because the point at which the satellite performs a maneuver must be present on both the starting orbit and the final orbit. For two circular orbits that are concentric, there are no intersection points. That is, with a single burn, a satellite moves from a first circular orbit onto an elliptical orbit, which then requires a second burn to move from the elliptical orbit onto the final circular orbit at a higher elevation. That being said, for a vehicle that encircles a planet as claimed, Applicant has not provided sufficient written description regarding how this is to be accomplished. Each point on the GPV is essentially performing a burn tangential to its path of motion as it is speeding up. How can the GPV expand outwardly, maintaining a circular orbit the entire time without any intermediary maneuvers and simply by increasing the velocity of the entire vehicle? How is the GPV able to remain stable during this outward movement?
Claim 18 recites “a method for planet surface to circular orbit payload insertion, the method comprising: (a) using a general planetary geospatial transportation complex comprising a general planetary vehicle encircling a planet on a line in a plane parallel to a plane of an equator”. Applicant has not provided any disclosure regarding how the vehicle can be launched into a circular orbit from a location on the surface of a planet parallel to the plane of an equator. If the transportation complex exists on section line 2 (Fig. 1), for example, how is the vehicle launching to an achievable orbit? Based on Applicant’s disclosure, the vehicle would launch due to overcoming the gravity of the planet. This implies that the general planetary vehicle will be moving perpendicular to the planet’s surface in order to reach orbit. If the transportation complex exists on a line parallel to the equator, but not the equator, the vehicle will reach a circular orbit that does not intersect the equator. Examiner notes that this is not possible as any object orbiting a planet must intersect with its center of mass. The center of mass of the planet must exist on the orbital plane, and since the equatorial plane intersects with the center of mass (on Earth, for example), all orbits must intersect the equator. Applicant has failed to provide an adequate written description regarding this matter.
Dependent claims 13-16 and 19-27 are likewise rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully notes that a number of the rejections presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated 7/10/2025 have not been responded to by Applicant. Specifically, rejections regarding the ability of the flywheels to accelerate to the required speed, how the GPV lifts “centrifugally”, how the GPV launches to orbit, etc. has not been adequately addressed in the response.
Applicant has, however, provided a number of technological papers, all co-authored by Applicant or Applicant’s company. Per 716.01(c) of the MPEP, in assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986). Examiner notes that Applicant’s technical documents appear to be substantially theoretical and cannot be considered objective evidence. Furthermore, the videos and explanations provided by Applicant are not a substitute for a model.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 8) that the rejections under §101 and §112(a) are legally improper, citing that if an invention is only partially successful in achieving a useful result, a rejection of the claimed invention as a whole based on a lack of utility is not appropriate. Examiner respectfully maintains that there is reason to believe the invention of the instant application is wholly inoperative and therefore cannot be partially successful.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9) that at least some of the technical questions raised by the Examiner (such as the relationship of the uneven Earth terrain’s effect of centrifugal forces) are legally and factually misplaced since they do not directly pertain to the claims. Examiner notes that the technical questions raised were in an endeavor to understand the operability of Applicant's invention and were not necessarily directed to specific claim limitations. Examiner raised questions to ascertain the possible implications of the technology with respect to §101 and §112(a) in which the specification as a whole must be taken into consideration, not necessarily the specific claim limitations. It is the instant Office Action that is addressing the claim limitations as amended and as such, the questions asked during the interview are not pertinent to the rejection of record herein unless specifically referred upon in the Office Action.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9) that an enabling disclosure is fully set forth in the present specification and that Examiner stated in the interview that she was comfortable with the utility and enablement of the present claims, but for one remaining technical question regarding centrifugal force acting perpendicularly on uneven terrain. First, Examiner respectfully notes that no agreement was reached in the interview dated 12/11/2025 and the absence of additional questioning regarding launch should not be taken as evidence that Examiner was comfortable with the utility of the present invention as it is conjecture as to Examiner’s thoughts about the invention. Applicant should refer to the written record for Examiner’s indication on the status of the interview. Second, the arguments presented by Applicant (Remarks pp. 9-10) regarding centrifugal force are not persuasive, as discussed below.
Applicant argues (Remarks pp. 9-10) that centrifugal force is the inertial force acting on a body moving along a curved trajectory and directed away from the center of curvature. Therefore, the centrifugal force, applied to any point in the trajectory of the linear body of the GPV, is directed away from the center of the GPV circular motion, thus, the center of the planet. Applicant further includes a figure on Page 11 of the Remarks and notes that Examiner may be confusing the centrifugal force/perpendicular lifting direction as measured from the GPV with the centrifugal force/perpendicular lifting direction as measured from the center of the planet. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner asserts that the centrifugal force is not being measured from the center of the planet, as the GPV is the only body “experiencing” this force. Examiner further notes that the force “felt” by the GPV is simply due to inertia – the tendency of an object to resist changes in motion. In the examples given by Applicant on Page 9, all are assumed to be moving in a perfect circle around a center. That is, at each point, the object is traveling perpendicular to the radius defined as the line between the object and the center. The force felt by each object is its resistance to change motion, having the appearance of outward force. However, the GPV of the instant application can be movement in directions not tangential to a radius defined between the surface and center of a planet. As such, the “outward motion” the GPV experiences will not be along the line of the radius (as evidenced by Applicant’s own drawing on Page 11). Applicant has not provided a practical example or evidence to factually support the assertion that, with uneven terrain, the GPV will entirely lift perpendicularly, and therefore stably, to the average surface of a planet. None of the examples provided by Applicant adequately describe the motion of the GPV in uneven terrain. However, Applicant does detail a mathematical model to optimize results, including transition curves that may allow for more uniform forces. Examiner notes that this ability to transition smoothly is planet and material dependent, but may be able to overcome mild unevenness in a planet’s surface.
Conclusion
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647