DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments focus on structure of figure 2, however, figure 2 is a nonelected figure. Figure 1 was elected on 01/25/2024. The arguments, however, will still be addressed.
With respect to figure 2, in the last paragraph of page 2, the applicant argues that the magnetic flux density causes forces to develop and “…As both forces points in the same direction, they combine to give a net thrust/force (F) that pushes the device in the opposite direction to the curve. So, if we set this up with the curves pointing down, the device pushes upward, against the gravity.” The examiner does not agree with the conclusion that there is a net thrust/force developed based on the magnetic thrust density. Instead, there can be no net force developed by the device on its own, based on known laws of physics.
The applicant further argues in the first paragraph of page 3 that: “The North Pole (N) is attracted by the South Pole (S) through the magnetic lines that at each point have the direction of the magnetic flux density vector (B). Thus, the South Pole (S) attracts the North Pole (N) upwards with the force (Fb), while the North Pole (N) attracts the South Pole (S) upwards with the force (Fa)”. This argument is not persuasive because the examiner does not agree with the shown force vector directions. The north and south poles can only attract the other pole in a direction towards themselves, and not away or in orthogonal directions that are shown by the force vectors in figure 2 as well as in other figures. Any attraction forces of north and south poles towards each other will inherently sum up to a net zero force on the solenoid structure because the real forces between the poles are inherently equal in magnitude and opposite in directions. The above response also applies to the arguments in the second paragraph of page 3. The disclosed structure cannot develop a non-zero force F because any forces developed by the structure inherently sum up to zero.
With respect to the claim amendments, as discussed in the advisory action, the proposed amendments do not overcome the issues raised in the 101 and the 112 rejections. Specifically, supplied electrical energy cannot produce the claimed force because there is no physical mechanism to convert the claimed energy into the claimed force. The supplied energy can only be converted into magnetic field by the claimed device, but not into the claimed force. The claimed force would inherently create momentum and thus violates the law of conservation of momentum as discussed in the 35 USC 101 rejection from 06/20/2025.
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 1-2 and 6-10 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 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 credible 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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are also 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, there is no clear explanation in the disclosure to explain how the alteration of the direction of the flux density produced along each curved part generates force vectors which generate a propulsive force based simply on the disclosed solenoid structure. Thus, there is lack of enablement. The disclosed device structure is a superconducting electromagnet (solenoid) that has an N and S poles as shown in figure 1 and claimed in the claims. On its own, such a structure cannot produce a propulsive force on itself based on known laws of physics. Specifically, this would violate the law of conservation of momentum. The examiner cannot find sufficient explanation in the specification and drawings to support the claimed generation of a propulsive force without additional structural elements being disclosed to enable the force. For this reason, there is also a lack of possession of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2163 I A).
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 1-2 and 6-10 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.
In re claim 1, it is not clear how the claimed structure can produce the resultant force because such functionality violates the laws of physics, as discussed in the 112(a) rejection. For this reason, the claimed functionality is vague and indefinite and cannot be further examined.
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 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The device claimed in claim 1 cannot operate as claimed because the claimed propulsive force cannot be produced by the claimed structure. The claimed structure claims a superconductive solenoid having a core and shield, and a cooling device. The structure is claimed to generate a propulsive force having vectors as shown in the figures. This clearly violates the laws of physics because the claimed superconductive solenoid can only produce a magnetic field, which on its own cannot create the claimed force without interacting with other structures that are not part of the device, which are not claimed or clearly disclosed in the rest of the disclosure. The claimed functionality violates the law of conservation of momentum because the claimed force would create momentum by moving the structure without any external interaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Talpalatski whose telephone number is (571)270-3908. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM PT.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at 5712723985. 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.
/Alexander Talpalatski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837