DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/20/2021. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2021 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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, an operation computer, as required by claim 1; an operation controller, as required by claim 1; the rail fixed to the kinetic energy generating disk (2), perpendicular to the radial ducts, a required by claim 1; both in its straight part and its irregular part said vector conduit has kinetic energy exchange elements, speed ad position sensors, as required by claim 1; and a mechanical transmission, a magnetic transmission, an internal combustion engine, and external combustion engine or a combination of these, as required by claim 2, 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 12, 19, 22 and 23. 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. 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 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility insofar as pertains to applicant's implication throughout the claims and disclosure that the device can produce motion (impulse) without reacting against an outside force (e.g. friction, land, or water), and without expelling mass such as in a jet plane. An example of implications appear as follows: “to achieve the impulse in the direction vector desired” (claim 1) and "Vectorial kinetic drivers of more than one vector conduit (8) like the one shown in fig. 4, achieve a great impulse in different directions, this is very useful when being installed in vehicles, since they can move without the need of air as a medium for their impulse, direction or support, as currently required by all aircrafts, finally, the installation of this development in space vehicles will allow safe, permanent and powerful propulsion without the requirement of the use of highly flammable fuels with which rocket engines are currently fed, whose weight and cost are very high, and ironically, once the fuel runs out are thrown away” (page 10 last paragraph).
The present invention is an vectoral kinetic driver which allegedly generates impulses through the release of a rotating mass into an energy exchanger. It is submitted however that such an operation violates basic physical laws, including conservation of momentum and Newton's Law of Motion. Since all mass is completely recirculated within the system; there is no mass transfer and thus no momentum transfer between the system and its environment. Therefore, the device is considered inoperative.
In order to operate in the manner and for the purpose disclosed, the device would have to violate Newton's third law of motion which states that an action force must be imposed upon an external frame of reference in order for there to be a net reaction force with respect to the external reference frame. In this case, the specification does not disclose an action force which is applied to the structure, and accordingly
there cannot be a net reaction force with respect to the structure.
The Patent and Trademark office is authorized to require evidence to the operability of an invention for which patent protection is sought. Consequently, in order to overcome the above rejection, applicant is required to demonstrate the operability of the invention, for example, by way of a working model.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 1 reads “Vectorial”, --A vectorial-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 2 reads “A”, --a-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 3 reads “A”, --a-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 4 reads “At”, --at-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 5 reads “At”, --at-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 6 reads “At”, --at-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 7 reads “At”, --at-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 8 reads “An”, --an-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 9 reads “An”, --an-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 10 reads “characterized by the fact that the”, --wherein the-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 14 reads “the periphery”, --a periphery-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 15 reads “That”, --that-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 17 reads “energy-generating”, --energy generating-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 19 reads “energy-generating”, --energy generating-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 21 reads “That”, --that-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 22 reads “speed”, --speed sensors-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 23 reads “It”, --it-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 25 reads “this rail fixed”, --the rail is fixed-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 26 reads “Which”, --which-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 27 recites the limitation “the direction”, --a direction-- is suggested.
Claim 1 lines 27-28 read “the impulse”, --an impulse-- is suggested.
Claim 1 lines 28-29 read “the selection”, --a selection-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 29 reads “the frequency”, --a frequency-- is suggested.
Claim 1 line 30 reads “the shots”, --shots-- is suggested.
Claims 2-5 line 1 reads “Vectorial”, --The vectorial-- is suggested.
Claims 2-5 line 1 reads “driver as mentioned in claim 1 wherein”, --driver of claim 1, wherein-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 3 reads “magnetic”, --a magnetic-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 3 reads “electric”, --an electric-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 4 reads “internal”, --an internal-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 4 reads “external”, --an external-- is suggested.
Claim 2 line 4 reads “or the”, --or a-- is suggested.
Claim 3 lines 1-2 read “the principle”, --a principle-- is suggested.
Claim 4 lines 1-2 read “the operating”, --an operating-- is suggested.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 read “the operating”, --an operating-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 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. Specifically, the claimed invention is considered inoperative, and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art could not use the invention to produce the claimed impulse.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any
necessary experimentation is "undue," as outlined in MPEP 2164.01(a) These Wand factors 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.
The Wands factors A-H apply and will be discussed further below.
(A) The breadth of the claims;
The claims each claim a vectorial kinetic driver.
(B) The nature of the invention;
Page 10 last paragraph of the specification reads "Vectorial kinetic drivers of more than one vector conduit (8) like the one shown in fig. 4, achieve a great impulse in different directions, this is very useful when being installed in vehicles, since they can move without the need of air as a medium for their impulse, direction or support, as currently required by all aircrafts, finally, the installation of this development in space vehicles will allow safe, permanent and powerful propulsion without the requirement of the use of highly flammable fuels with which rocket engines are currently fed, whose weight and cost are very high, and ironically, once the fuel runs out are thrown away”.
It is thus clear from the specification that the claimed invention is a reactionless drive which is purported to operate without reaction from an external environment, which would include without interacting with a supporting surface or fluid medium, and without a propellant..
The law of conservation of momentum can be summarized as "In a closed system (one that does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces) the total momentum is constant." The nature of the purported impulse generating device is one that would require, in order to operate, momentum to not be conserved and thus the law of conservation of momentum to be violated.
Furthermore, it is clear from the instant application's specification that the claimed invention's alleged operation and enablement requires Newton's third law of motion, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, to not apply and to be violated. Without the use of a propellant, and without interacting with other surfaces or fluid mediums, there would be no equal and opposite reaction to the purported propulsion.
(C) The state of the prior art;
The prior art has not established an enabled, operative, working way to violate the law of conservation of momentum and violate Newton's third law of motion.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the law of conservation of momentum, and would not know how to make a device that violates that law and other known laws of physics.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Newton's third law, and would not know how to make a device that violates that law and other known laws of physics.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that inertial-thruster engines are not known to work and are indeed known to not work and known to be inoperative.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
In the art, the law of conservation of momentum would predict that the applicant's device is inoperative since it violates the known laws of physics.
In the art, Newton's third law of motion would predict that the applicant's device is inoperative since it would be required to violate Newton's third law of motion.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
The inventor has not explained to a person having ordinary skill in the art how to make and use a device that violates the known laws of physics, including, in particular -but not exclusively, the law of conservation of momentum, and Newton's third law of motion, nor has the inventor disproved those known laws.
(G) The existence of working examples; and
The Applicant has not provided evidence of any working examples.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the
content of the disclosure.
Since the device of the instant application would necessarily violate the laws of physics in order to work as described, the quantity of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is incredibly high, since a person having ordinary skill in the art would necessarily need to disprove the known laws of physics, such as the law of conservation of momentum and Newton's third law of motion.
In light of the above discussion, it is the Examiner's position that the claim(s) contain 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.
Furthermore, according to MPEP 2107.01(IV), a deficiency under prong of 35 USC 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 USC 112(a).
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2164.07.I.A, "If a claim fails to meet the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is shown to be non-useful or inoperative, then it necessarily fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. As noted in In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971), if "compositions are in fact useless, appellant's specification cannot have taught how to use them. 439 F.2d at 1243, 169 USPQ at 434. The examiner should make both rejections (i.e., a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101) where the subject matter of a claim has been shown to be non-useful or inoperative." Since the Applicant's device is inoperative as described in their specification, and since the Applicant has thus failed to make at least one credible assertion of specific utility in the specification, rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101 arc both proper and required.
In light of the above discussion, it is the Examiner's position that the claim(s) contain 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 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.
Claims 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 11 recites the limitation “high speed”. It is unclear what is required to be high speed. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 line 11, 12, 14, 20, 21 and 24 recite the limitation “its”. In each limitation, it is unclear what element “its” is referring to.
Claim 1 lines 12-13 recite the limitation “the generating disk kinetic energy”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 13-14 recite the limitation “where are rotated and circulate”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation.
Claim 1 line 15 recites the limitation “spherical bodies”. It is unclear what is required of the spherical bodies.
Claim 1 line 15 recites the limitation “the vector duct”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 15 recites the limitation “circular section”. It is unclear what is required to be a circular section.
Claim 1 lines 15-17 recite the limitation “its first part is straight and is placed orthogonally and coplanar to the radial ducts”. It is unclear how the first part of the vector duct can be placed orthogonally to the radial ducts, when the radial ducts rotate. In other words, are the radial ducts stationary or do the vector ducts rotate with the radial ducts?
Claim 1 line 17 recites the limitation “the radial ducts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 17-18 recite the limitation “that said vector duct”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 lines 18-19 recite the limitation “that, like the energy-generating disk, is fixed to the structure”. It is unclear what elements “that” is referring to.
Claim 1 line 20 recites the limitation “whose”. It is unclear what element “whose” is referring to.
Claim 1 line 20 recites the limitation “final part”. It is unclear what is required to be a “final” part.
Claim 1 line 20 recites the limitation “irregular”. It is unclear what is required to be “irregular”.
Claim 1 line 20 recites the limitation “journey”. It is unclear what is considered to be a “journey”.
Claim 1 line 20 recites the limitation “the disk feeder”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 21 recites the limitation “both”. It is unclear what elements are referred to by “both”.
Claim 1 lines 21-22 recite the limitation “said vector conduit”. However, line 4 recites the limitation “at least one vector conduit”. It is unclear which vector conduit is being referred to. Also, it is unclear if this limitation is limiting the at least one vector conduit to a single vector conduit.
Claim 1 line 23 recites the limitation “It”. It is unclear what element “it” is referring to.
Claim 1 line 23 recites the limitation “a trigger”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “at least one trigger” recited in line 5, or if this limitation requires an additional trigger.
Claim 1 lines 23-24 recite the limitation “spherical bodies”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “spherical bodies” recited in line 14, or if this limitation requires additional spherical bodies.
Claim 1 lines 23-24 recite the limitation “It has a trigger with spherical bodies that is mounted on a rail”. It is unclear if both the trigger and spherical bodies are mounted on the rail.
Claim 1 line 26 recites the limitation “the radial ducts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 26 recites the limitation “which is driven”. It is unclear what element(s) the term “which” is referring to.
Claim 1 line 27 recites the limitation “at least one controller”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “An operation controller” recited in line 9, or if this limitation requires an additional controller.
Claim 1 line 28 recites the limitation “a computer”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “An operation computer” recited in line 9, or if this limitation requires an additional computer.
Claim 1 line 30 recites the limitation “shots”. It is unclear what is required to be a “shot”.
Claim 1 line 30 recites the limitation “the direction vector”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 recite the limitation “indistinctly”. The term indistinctly is defined as “in a way that is not clear or sharply defined”. Therefore, the claims are inherently unclear.
Claim 2 line 5 recites the limitation “some of these”. It is unclear what elements “these” is referring to.
Claim 3 line 2 recites the limitation “kinetic energy exchangers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 line 4 recites the limitation “some of them”. It is unclear what elements “them” are referring to.
Claim 4 line 4 recites the limitation “some of them”. It is unclear what elements “them” are referring to.
Claim 5 line 2 recites the limitation “the trigger”. However, claim 1 line 5 recites the limitation “at least one trigger”. It is unclear which trigger is being referred to or if it is limiting the claim to a single trigger.
Claim 5 line 3 recites the limitation “the mechanical”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation.
Claim 5 line 3 recites the limitation “electromagnetic type”. The phrase “type” renders the claim indefinite.
As noted above, a great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations. Accordingly, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims as currently written would be improper since doing so would require considerable speculation and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) and adoption thereof by MPEP § 2173.06 II which states “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art”. However, the art of record gives a fair appreciation for relevant prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20140070632 A1, US 4280325 A and US 3938337 A disclose the use of movement of spherical elements to convert motion and/or generate motion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618