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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: an “articulated” housing does not appear in the specification (It’s really unclear how or where this takes place.) Likewise 178m2 AM does not appear in the specification.
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, the vane (Claim 10), “articulated” housing (Claim 11), the house is maneuverable (Claim 14), “eductor” (Claims 18, 19) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112a
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.
Claim 4, 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 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. 178m2 AM does not appear to be an isotope that exists. A person or ordinary skill in the art would not recognize it as being in the possession of the inventors in the year 2020 for use in thermal energy propulsion plants.
Similarly, 93 Mo does not appear to have a practical way to use the heat for propulsion as of 2020; the long half life of 4000 years differs by orders of magnitude from the cited isotopes with 141 and 31 years. A person or ordinary skill in the art would not recognize it as being in the possession of the inventors in the year 2020 for use in thermal energy propulsion plants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 2-5, 9-14 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 antecedent basis for “method” in Claims 2-5 is missing.
Regarding Claim 4, 178m2 AM appears to be a typo. It is not an isotope that appears on the internet It is not described in the specification.
Regarding Claim 11, it’s not clear what property of the submersible makes it “articulated”.
Regarding Claim 9, “said turbine” lacks an antecedent basis. (Check claim dependency)
Regarding Claim 13, The term “suppresses cavitation is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suppresses cavitation” 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. (It is not clear what the baseline cavitation from which cavitation is suppressed.)
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, it’s not clear what properties of an “educator” the water jet has besides pulling in and pushing out water. It is discussed in the spec as “the type disclosed herein” then never discussed again. It does not appear in the drawing.
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.
Claims 1, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Heinscher discloses a watercraft, comprising: a hull (Submarine); a propulsion system for propelling the hull through water; and a power plant which powers the propulsion system, the power plant including a heat engine (Stirling) and a thermal energy source; wherein the thermal energy source includes at least one material selected from the group consisting of nuclear isomers and radioisotopes(LERN reactor, embodiment 1); and wherein the watercraft is selected from the group consisting of submersibles and submarines (submarine).
Regarding Claim 15, Heinscher discloses a submersible of claim 1, wherein said heat engine is selected from the group consisting of Stirling Cycle engines and Ericsson Cycle engines. (Sterling)
Regarding Claim 16, Heinscher discloses a submersible of claim 1, further comprising: at least one battery which powers said submersible. (battery)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1) in view of Hiler (CN 110165940 A)..
Regarding Claim 17, Heinscher discloses the submersible of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: at least one ultracapacitor which powers said submersible.
Hiler discloses : at least one ultracapacitor which powers said submersible is a substitute for a battery ( under description of Fig. 3: “electric power storage device 28 …battery set, or nano-technology such as super capacitor such as capacitor storage system”) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to substitute the battery of Heinscher with the ultracapacitor of Hiler which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Heinscher is to provide for a known substitute recognized as suitable for providing storage of electric power for the submersible.
Claims 6, 7, 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1) in view of Matic (WO 2005016742 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Heinscher discloses the submersible of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the submersible includes at least one generator which powers said propulsion system.
Matic discloses wherein the submersible includes at least one generator (bottom of page 4) which powers said propulsion system. It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to use the population system of Matic with the thermal energy source of Heinscher which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Heinscher is to apply the thermal energy to a known propulsion system in a nuclear submersible.
Regarding Claim 7, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 6, wherein the at least one generator includes an alternator. (suggested by frequency, Matic p4.)
Regarding Claim 2, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the hull includes a forward end and an aft end. (See Matic Fig. 4.)
Regarding Claim 9, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 2, wherein said turbine intakes water through a first opening in said hull and ejects water from a second opening in said hull, and wherein said first and second openings in said hull are in fluidic communication with each other by way of a conduit. (Matic, Element 10 Fig. 5)
Claims 8, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1) in view of Matic (WO 2005016742 A1) and further in view of Bishop (US 3017848 A)
Regarding Claim 8, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said propulsion system includes at least one Tesla bladeless turbine.
Bishop discloses a water jet wherein said propulsion system includes at least one Tesla bladeless turbine. (C1, L41) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to select a Tesla turbine as the type of turbine for the water jet of Matic which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Matic is to provide laminar flow that is not subject to cavitation.
Regarding Claim 18, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 1, further comprising a water jet eductor system (See Bishop Fig. 6.).
Regarding Claim 19, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 1, wherein the propulsion system includes a water jet eductor propulsion system. (See Bishop Fig. 6.).
Regarding Claim 20, Heinscher in view of Matic and further in view of Bishop discloses the submersible of claim 1, wherein the propulsion system includes a bladeless turbine. (See rejection of Claim 8)
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1) in view of Matic (WO 2005016742 A1) and further in view of Ishigaki (US 20030056704 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Heinscher in view of Matic discloses the submersible of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein said conduit is equipped with a plurality of vanes along an interior surface thereof, and wherein said plurality of vanes are configured to induce vortexual fluid flow to the water ejected from the second opening in said hull.
Ishikagi discloses wherein said conduit is equipped with a plurality of vanes along an interior surface thereof (Element 59), and wherein said plurality of vanes are configured to induce vortexual fluid flow to the water ejected from the second opening in said hull (rectification). It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to add the vanes of Ishigaki to the conduit of Matic which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Matic is to rectify the flow.
Regarding Claim 11, Heinscher in view of Matic and further in view of Ishikagi discloses the submersible of claim 10, further comprising: an articulated, quasi-conical housing which terminates in a tapered end. (See Matic, Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 12, Heinscher in view of Matic and further in view of Ishikagi discloses the submersible of claim 11, wherein said tapered end of said housing extends beyond said second opening of said conduit. (See Fig 3.)
Regarding Claim 13, Heinscher in view of Matic and further in view of Ishikagi discloses submersible of claim 12, wherein the flow of water through said housing suppresses cavitation through the entrainment of ambient fluid. (Cavitation is reduced compared to at least some baseline.)
Regarding Claim 14, Heinscher in view of Matic and further in view of Ishikagi discloses submersible of claim 12, wherein said housing is maneuverable to deflect the flow of water from said second end of said conduit toward the forward end of said hull. (The housing is maneuvered by controlling the groups of motors, Matic page 8.)
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinscher (DE 102012016526 A1) in view of Benetti (“Americium 242m and its potential use in space
Applications” 2006)
Regarding Claim 3, Heinscher in view of method of claim 1, wherein the heat source includes a LERN, but does not explicitly disclose the LERN including 242Am.
Benetti discloses where 242Am is a fuel suitable for a LENR. (Abstract) It would have been obvious at the time of filing for a person of ordinary skill in the marine art to select AM242 as a thermal source for the LENR of Heinscher which can be accomplished with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify Heinscher as disclosed by Benetti is “Am242m allows achieving and maintaining criticality even with thin layer of fissile material and compact system.” (See Conclusions)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW POLAY whose telephone number is (408)918-9746. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/ANDREW POLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615 24 September 2025