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 .
Drawings
Replacement drawings were filed 7/08/2025; however, these drawings remain objected because they are of poor line and print quality. These drawings are not approved as they do not conform with the requirements of 37 CFR “1.84 Standards for drawings.”
“(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” 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 § 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the invention appears to be inoperative as it violates the laws of physics.
System without discharge gap
PNG
media_image1.png
610
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
System with discharge gap
PNG
media_image2.png
652
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In applicant’s description of a system without a discharge gap in Fig. 1, the forces cancel because current flows in each branch. In Fig. 2, which underpins the theoretical principle of operation of applicant’s device, the discharge gap has a completed circuit when the discharge current 13 flows and is thus analogous to Fig. 1C at the time of the completed circuit. At that time, the currents 12 and 13 are equal due to conservation principles and an opposing repulsive force [added in dashed box], similar to Fig. 1 is still produced. Accordingly, the forces produced by both sides of the conductor will cancel and there will be no net thrust, in a manner analogous to Fig. 1C. As both Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are analogous at the time of the circuit completion, there can be no net thrust in Fig. 2.
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 1-8 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. Applicant did not possess the claimed subject matter as it violates the laws of physics per analysis above.
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 1-8 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 remain generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The following issues are only exemplary, applicant’s assistance in correcting any issues not listed below is requested.
Claim 1, line 3, “the anterior face” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 9 “the rear face” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1, line 5 “wherein the spaced- part conductor segment of the conductor are [???] connected to discharge electrodes positioned across the ends of the discharge gap of the planar electric motor” is unclear. Note that “the spaced-part conductor segment of the conductor” is a single element; however, applicant uses “are” which implies there are plural of these segment[s]. Accordingly, the claim is rendered unclear as to whether a single or a plurality is being referenced here. Furthermore, “spaced-part” is unclear what is being referenced.
Claim 1, line 6 “to the portion of the electrical conductor placed on a front face, wherein the portion of the conductor located on the rear face. These recitations lack proper antecedent basis, the only “portion” previously referenced is that extending through the passage hole.
Claim 3 “all the elements conforming each thruster” does not render clear the elements of claim 1 and their relationship to “each thruster” of the claim.
Claim 4 “wherein all the elements that make up a thruster” does not render clear the elements of claim 1 and their relationship to “a thruster” of claim 2.
Claim 4, “the conductors, discharge gaps and discharge electrodes with the required parallel orientations and the discharge capacitors” lacks proper antecedent basis and fails to properly establish the relationship with claim 1, where only a single of each of these elements is identified. See also claims 7, 8.
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(s) 1, 4, 2, 7, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frescaline et al (6838786) in view of Land III et al (2005/0217238) and for claim 2, further in view of GB 2445180. Frescaline et al teach A planar electric motor for aerospace, the planar electric motor comprising an electrical conductor of a rectangular cross-section 4 placed, deposited or adhered on the anterior face of a plate of insulating material 6, 14 in such a way that at least a portion of the electrical conductor extends about the insulating plater such that on an opposite side or back face of the insulating plate, an extension of said electrical conductor is placed in a path parallel to the portion of the electrical conductor placed on a front face, wherein the portion of the conductor located on the rear face of the insulating plate includes a discharge gap 15a, 15b formed between a spaced-apart conductor segment 17 of the conductor, wherein the spaced- part conductor segment of the conductor are connected to discharge electrodes [e.g. ends of conductors 17 about 15b] positioned across the ends of the discharge gap of the planar electric motor being further characterized in that one end of the conductor corresponding to the spaced-apart conductor segment forms an interrupted conductor that is electrically connected to a capacitor or capacitor bank in a Marx type assembly 2 [col. 10, lines 30-40] forming a relaxation oscillator circuit, wherein a discharge path of the relaxation oscillator circuit includes the interrupted conductor 17, the discharge electrodes [ends of 17 about 15b] and the discharge gap 15b. Frescaline et al do not teach a conductor .. passing through a passage hole in the insulating plate nor that the it is specifically used in a planar electric motor / thruster. Land III et al teach a conductor 120, 130, 106 .. passing through 130 a passage hole in the insulating plate [substrate] 102 is well known in the art and facilitates a modular assembly and facilitates use in a thruster / planar electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the insulating plate with a hole for which the conductor .. passes through a passage hole in the insulating plate, in a thruster / planar electric motor, in the manner taught by Land III et al, in order to facilitate a modular assembly and use of the electrical conductors for an analogous planar assembly that can be an electric motor / thruster. Frescaline et al do not teach all the elements that make up the thruster, are assembled with a printed circuit board technique where a substrate of the printed circuit board is the main insulating material of a thruster and over this base are placed the conductors discharge gaps and discharge electrodes with the required parallel orientations and the discharge capacitors are assembled over the substrate by means of alternating layers of conductive plates and insulating plates forming a compact unit of multi layers. Land III et al teach all the elements that make up the thruster, are assembled with a printed circuit board technique where a substrate of the printed circuit board 102 is the main insulating material 102 of a thruster and over this base are placed the conductors 120, 106, discharge gaps and discharge electrodes with the required parallel orientations and the discharge capacitors are assembled over the substrate by means of alternating layers of conductive plates and insulating plates forming a compact unit of multi layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make all the elements that make up the thruster, are assembled with a printed circuit board technique where a substrate of the printed circuit board is the main insulating material of a thruster and over this base are placed the conductors discharge gaps and discharge electrodes, over the substrate by means of alternating layers of conductive plates and insulating plates forming a compact unit of multi layers, in the manner taught by Land III et al, as using a printed circuit board technique is well known in the art and allows for relatively easy fabrication and consistency of an electrical circuit. Frescaline et al do not teach wherein a part of the interrupted conductor placed, deposited or adhered to the back face of the insulating material plate is replaced by a section of superconducting material. GB ‘180 teaches the use of wherein a part of the conductor placed, deposited or adhered to the back face of the insulating material plate is replaced by a section of superconducting material, which reduces electrical losses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace part of the interrupted conductor placed, deposited or adhered to the back face of the insulating material plate, such that it is replaced by a section of superconducting material, as taught by GB ‘180, to reduce electrical losses.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frescaline et al (6838786) in view of Land III et al (2005/0217238) and for claim 2, further in view of GB 2445180, as applied above, and further in view of Marshall et al (6774532). Frescaline et al do not teach where all the elements conforming each thruster are grouped in a modular way, replicated and placed in a rectangular or radial arrangement forming a composite module or cluster that shares a substrate or insulating plate on which all the other elements are deposited forming a common thrust unit and where these assemblies when placed on top of each other in tandem or layers constitute more powerful units with bidirectional impulse capacity. Marshall et al teach where all the elements conforming each thruster are grouped in a modular way, replicated and placed in a rectangular or radial arrangement forming a composite module or cluster [Fig. 7] that shares a substrate or insulating plate 8 on which all the other elements are deposited forming a common thrust unit and where these assemblies when placed on top of each other in tandem or layers [27, 27’, Fig. 8(b)] constitute more powerful units with bidirectional impulse capacity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make all the elements conforming each thruster are grouped in a modular way, replicated and placed in a rectangular or radial arrangement forming a composite module or cluster that shares a substrate or insulating plate on which all the other elements are deposited forming a common thrust unit and where these assemblies when placed on top of each other in tandem or layers constitute more powerful units with bidirectional impulse capacity, as taught by Marshall et al, as using modular assemblies facilitates ease of construction and allows use of multiple modules with increased power and/or capability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding operability focus on:
"Further, the Examiner alleges that the invention is inoperative and fails to meet the utility requirement under § 101 due to force cancellation that purportedly violates physical laws (Office Action, Pages 3-4). Specifically, the Examiner contends that in Fig. 1, the opposing currents in the primary (1) and secondary (2) conductors generate equal and opposite repulsive forces that cancel, resulting in no net thrust. Further, the Examiner stated that, in Fig. 2 of the current application, when discharge current (13) flows across the gap (7), the circuit becomes equivalent to that in Fig. 1C, again leading to opposing currents (12 and 13) that allegedly cancel each other out. Based on this reasoning, the Examiner concludes that the claimed system is not operable as described.
The Applicant respectfully submits that the examiner's steady-state analysis is inapplicable to the invention as recited in amended claim 1, which generates net thrust through a transient mechanism enabled by the discharge gap and pulsed operation. The following arguments of the amended Claim 1, demonstrate that the forces do not cancel and that the current application is operative. “
In rebuttal, applicant’s allegation that the Examiner’s analysis relies on a steady state analysis of Fig. 1 and that applicant’s Fig. 2 shows what happens in the transient condition is not persuasive. In Fig. 1, the current is equal on both sides. If a switch is connected to Fig. 1, regardless of whether there is an arc / spark with electrodes, than turning the switch on will inherently cause a transient that functions identically with applicant’s Fig. 2. Note that virtually all electric circuits include a switch, including an on/off switch, that induces a transient pulse at turn on. In applicant’s Fig. 2, once the circuit is completed, the current is the same on both sides and the forces cancel, per analogous behavior to Fig. 1. By applicant’s reasoning, whenever an electrical switch is turned on in outer space, the transients would cause that particular object to fly since the forces are unbalanced during that transient. Based on ordinary experience, this does not happen. Rather, the forces are equal and opposite as per Fig. 1, once the circuit is completed. Fig. 1 will behave the same regardless of whether a switch is connected to it and turned, or turned on/off repeatedly. Furthermore, applicant’s arguments admit that pulsed operation is required for operation. However, there is no pulsed operation anywhere in the claims and applicant’s claims fail to meet the minimal requirements for his own device to allegedly operate. Applicant’s “real time setup” on page 9 only show the circuit being completed, there is no evidence that shows thrust forces were generated other than applicant’s assertion.
As the operativeness of applicant's invention is questioned, applicant is invited to demonstrate the operativeness of applicant’s device to an appropriately credentialed third party. Such a demonstration could, for example, be witnessed by a third party having no vested interest in the invention and having appropriate scientific credentials; e.g. professor of physics or engineering at a major university The witness would typically be expected to provide an affidavit attesting to the fact that the demonstrated model accurately conforms to the apparatus shown in the related patent application and operates in the manner disclosed by the applicant.
Applicant’s experimental evidence, should it be given credence, would teach that the applied Frescaline et al reference would also generate thrust forces, as he uses an analogous spark circuit and Marx capacitor bank as well as pulsed switching operation in the high-voltage system.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Frescaline et al and the “single conductor” are not persuasive.
“While Frescaline merely discloses an electromagnetic cell with parallel branches separated by an insulation layer and a spark switch with gaps, the gaps of Frescaline is significantly different from the discharge gap of the claimed invention. Frescaline's spark switch is located in the linking line adjacent to the first plate (comparable to the conductor of the current application) comprising multiple cut-off points with insulation sheets to enable switching. In contrast, the amended claim 1 of the current application discloses a discharge gap formed between the spaced-apart segments of a single conductor on the rear face of the insulating plate and is electrically integrated with discharge electrodes and a Marx-type capacitor bank to form a relaxation oscillator circuit. This arrangement is absent from Frescaline. This configuration of single conductor passing through the passage hole passing through a passage hole in the insulating plate to form parallel paths on the front and rear faces, as recited in amended claim 1, is not taught or suggested by Frescaline. Further, Frescaline's spark switch is configured for switching high-voltage pulses in a magnetic pressure generation system, not for generating thrust via a transient force imbalance, as recited in the current application.”
There is no requirement that there be a “single conductor” in the claims and this is even rebutted by claim 2 which uses an additional superconducting section, which can be considered an additional conductor. When the spark bridges the gap [as a spark switch], the conductor operates analogously to applicant’s so called “single conductor.” Since applicant has two different sections of the conductor, even in Fig. 2, each of these sections can even be considered a different conductor, since there is a break in the circuit / conductor. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments fail to persuade.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Land fail to persuade. Land clearly has parallel paths 120, 106 and the conductor passing through a hole [e.g. 602]. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments fails to persuade as Frescaline et al was modified to have that configuration rather than merely wrapping around an end of the insulator. Frescaline et al already teach the discharge gap at the spark switch. As for the planar electric motor / thruster, it is noted that using Frescaline et al, as modified by Land will perform analogously in terms of producing a thrust should applicant’s arguments and disclosure be given credence.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at 571-272-4502. Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
October 7, 2025