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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on November 15, 2025 has been entered.
It appears the inventor filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
This action is a Final Rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Response to Arguments filed on November 15, 2025
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-11, filed on November 15, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-11, filed on November 15, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
It must be noted that applicant’s submission does not include claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections have been sustained.
Response to Arguments filed on February 9, 2025
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-12, filed on February 9, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant’s argument, see pages 3 and 4, filed on February 9, 2025, that “Applicants amended claims 1-20 following the Examiner's comments. Accordingly, the claims distinctly claim the subject matter, which the applicants regard as the invention, and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”, it must be noted that applicant’s submission does not include claim amendments. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections have been sustained.
In response to applicant’s argument, see page 4, filed on February 9, 2025, that “Claims 1-20 of the invention are not anticipated or obvious based on the cited references”, it must be noted that a 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection is an anticipation rejection, not an obviousness rejection.
Also, it should be emphasized that “apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art.” MPEP 2114. In In re Danly, 263 F. 2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959), it was held that apparatus claims must be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In Hewlett-Packard Co. v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held that: “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does” (emphases in original). To emphasize the point further, the court added: “An invention need not operate differently than the prior art to be patentable, but need only be different” (emphases in original).
In response to applicant’s argument, see pages 4-7, filed on February 9, 2025, that “All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 103, 35 U.S.C. 101 are incorrect, and withdrawal need to be considered to allow the invention to his original scope to perform work and not to change to the wrong direction to fit any prior arts.”, it must be noted that applicant’s remarks merely repeat the plurality of indefinite terms used in the claims and the specification.
Since the applicant has not provided specification and claim amendments that properly describe how the claimed invention is developed, built, and operated, the continual and circular recitation of the terms do not cure the shortcomings of the disclosure.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: “SOYOS”, “SOYOS environment”, and “SOYOS drop piston”.
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure (not merely a plurality of assertions repeating the undefined terms) so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: the use of “air, sand, and water (ASW) as power sources for a soyos environment clean engine (SECE).”
Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the proposed amendment to the abstract includes new matter. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for using “air, sand, and water” as carriers of mechanical energy, does not reasonably provide enablement for using “air, sand, and water” as sources of energy. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims because the claimed invention does not appear to transform any “air, sand, and water” into a different form of energy.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for assembling a plurality of structural elements to create a large mechanical system, does not reasonably provide enablement for constructing some of those structural elements (i.e.: a “clean stroke maker”, a “soyos drop piston”, a “capsule catcher system”, an “automatic internal command system”, a “customized Torque-Speed builder”, etc.). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
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 1-20 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.
The claims comprise a plurality of structural elements (i.e.: a “clean stroke maker”, a “soyos drop piston”, a “capsule catcher system”, an “automatic internal command system”, a “customized Torque-Speed builder”, etc.) whose design, construction, and method of operation are not disclosed in the claims or the specification.
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 SOYOS”, “SOYOS environment”, and “SOYOS drop piston” “clean stroke maker”, “capsule catcher system”, “automatic internal command system”, and “customized Torque-Speed builder” in the claims are indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the terms.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claims must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patents cited.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships in claim 1 are:
the structural connection between the SUS and the CSM;
the structural connection between the SUS and the ICS;
the structural connection between the SUS and the RTS;
the structural connection between the SUS and the SDP;
the structural connection between the SUS and the clutch system;
the structural connection between the CSM and the ICS;
the structural connection between the CSM and the RTS;
the structural connection between the CSM and the SDP;
the structural connection between the CSM and the clutch system;
the structural connection between the ICS and the RTS;
the structural connection between the ICS and the SDP;
the structural connection between the ICS and the clutch system;
the structural connection between the RTS and the SDP;
the structural connection between the RTS and the clutch system; and
the structural connection between the SDP and the clutch system.
The omitted structural cooperative relationships in claims 2-20 have not been listed because some of them might be cured by corrections to claim 1.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted elements are:
a “main water pump”.
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 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention, as recited in he claims, is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Since the claimed invention does not recite a “main water pump”, it is not capable of providing the “clean stroke maker” with the necessary operating fluid to initiate and maintain the operation of the invention.
Claims 4, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention, as recited in the claims, is inoperative and therefore lacks patentable utility.
Since the claimed invention does not recite a source of energy (mechanical, electrical, chemical) to initiate and maintain the operation of a “main water pump”, it is not capable of providing the “clean stroke maker” with the necessary operating fluid to initiate and maintain the operation of the invention.
Models - 37 CFR § 1.91
The following is a quotation of paragraph(s) (a) and (b) of 37 C.F.R. 1.91:
(a) A model or exhibit will not be admitted as part of the record of an application unless it:
(1) Substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84; or
(2) Is specifically required by the Office.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application.
The applicant is requested to furnish a working model of the claimed invention for the purpose of demonstrating operability, utility, and patentability.
IF the application was actually directed to a working device the following rejection would apply. This rejection is based on the broadest possible interpretation of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0178634 A1 to Eskanr.
Eskanr clearly teaches a power generating system of the gravity and leaf springs, comprising the structure recited in the claims and operating under the same principles and obtaining the same results disclosed in the specification.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PEDRO J CUEVAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2021. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jessica Han can be reached on (571) 272-2078. 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.
/PEDRO J CUEVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 December 8, 2025