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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. Applicant has amended the claims, deleting “generating a warp field” and “warping spacetime”, and replacing it with a method and system “wherein a distortion in spacetime is generated” and “a method for altering light in space time”. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 of the claim recites “complext permittivity”. It is assumed this should be “complex permittivity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 3 USC 103 of claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed October 24, 2025 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 5-6
Applicant traverses [the rejections of claims 8-9 and 10-13 under 35 USC 101 and 112 for utility] because the specification discloses features and foundational theories that provide the basis for the arrangement and operation of Applicant’s system. For example, the Alcubierre metric was formulated from Einstein's gravitational field equation formalism. It is known that a relationship between gravitational field equations and Maxwell's equations, which describe electromagnetic interactions. Further, electromagnetism can be formulated mathematically in Minkowski space. This suggests that electromagnetic fields have the potential to affect space time. The converse is clearly true as it is known that strong gravitational fields bend light, which can be characterized as an electromagnetic wave. This disclosure provides As shown in FIG. 4, a shaping function is formed within the cylindrical cavity based on the electric flux density. In FIG. 5A, the energy distribution is positive and highest on the outer edges of the radius, where the Yorke time response of FIG. 5B shows that in the region ahead of the "ship" spacetime is compressed and it is expanded in the region behind. FIGS. 6A and 6B and the associated text describe testing performed using the claimed structure and provides a sufficient use case for practicing the claimed embodiment and the resulting utility in propulsion technology. For at least these reasons, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that this is sufficient to overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112. Applicant states that “This suggests that electromagnetic fields have the potential to affect space time”, emphasis added. A mere suggestion of a potential to affect space time does not provide proof that the disclosure of applicant’s system actually will distort space time or alter light in space time, as claimed. The examiner suggests submission of a peer-reviewed journal article as proof the applicant’s system works as claimed. Even assuming in arguendo that the claimed device will cause a distortion in spacetime, there is no proven nexus that this distortion provides a utility in propulsion technology. The only discussion of propulsion technologically in the specification is one line in paragraph [0032], as filed. Applicant has not provided sufficient data that applicant’s system has utility for propulsion technology.
Applicant continues
Applicant traverses [the enablement] rejection because the original disclosure sufficiently describes the claimed embodiment so that the persons of skill in the art can make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation. Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed embodiment.
…
In this instance and as noted above, Applicant disclosures provides a detailed discussion of the arrangement of components necessary to produce the claimed results. In addition, the disclosure provides details of at least one test performed on the claimed structure with the following parameters:
° Cylindrical cavity diameter: 17.8 mm
° Pass through hole diameter 1.5 mm
° rf source power: 100 mW
° rf source frequency: 2.4 GHz
° Laser wavelength(s): 410, 532, 650 mm
° Real Impedance in cavity: 78 Ohms
Moreover, paragraph [0046] of Applicant’s disclosure provides details on how the test was conducted. The disclosure also includes plots showing the results of the testing. While Applicant can appreciate the Office questioning the reduction to practice of the claimed embodiment, it is respectfully submitted that the evidence and factual support provided in the disclosure are sufficient to satisfy the enablement requirements under the Wand factors. The Office is reminded that a conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. /n re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Office asserts “there is no proof of reduction to practice and therefore no predictability on how such a system would physically operate” and “the specification provides no direction as to how the device would work or how to measure how he device would work.” Applicant disagrees and respectfully submits that the structure, arrangement, and operation of the system are sufficiently described such that the person of skill in the art would be sufficiently guided to practice and use the invention. In addition, the Office’s contention that “the experimentation required for the various ways to generate a warp field by using a resonant cavity filled with dielectric material would be a great amount” is conclusory and speculative at best, as Applicant’s disclosure provides a detailed explanation and example of the required components and the metrics associated with each component necessary for producing the claimed result.
Applicant respectfully submits that a fair and reasonable assessment of the Wands factors based on the original disclosure should weigh in favor of the enablement requirement being met by the claimed embodiment. For these reasons, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that this is sufficient to overcome the enablement rejections of claims 8-9 and 10-13. Applicant merely has provided evidence of the system of claims 1-3 and 5-7, which are not rejected under 35 USC 101 or 112. The Applicant has not shown any proof that this device would generate the claimed “distortion in spacetime” or that the method will “alter light in space time”. While the Examiner does not dispute that “at least one test performed on the claimed structure” using the listed parameters, there is no evidence that this test creates the claimed “distortion in spacetime” or that the method will “alter light in space time”. The examiner suggests submission of a peer-reviewed journal article as proof the applicant’s system works as claimed.
Therefore the rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112 are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, 112
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.
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 8-9 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Regarding claims 8 and 10-13, the claims recite “wherein a distortion in spacetime is generated in the resonant cavity when at least the portion of the laser beam captured by the optical sensor is distorted”, claim 8, and a “method for altering light in space time”, claims 10-13.
The claimed invention is inoperative and lacks credible utility because it claims “a distortion in spacetime is generated” or “altering light in space time” by emitting a laser beam through a resonant cavity filled with a dielectric material. The specification does not describe in any way how one of ordinary skill in the art can make or use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The specification states makes a single mention that there is utility for vehicle propulsion, but it does not provide any data on how the claimed device works for the utility of vehicle propulsion. The single mentioning vehicle propulsion is not sufficient to prove a credible utility.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement requires that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Under the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731,737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), see MPEP 2164.01(a), the Office concludes that
(A) the breadth of the claims a system “wherein a warp field is generated” or “method for warping space time” by emitting a laser beam through a resonant cavity filled with a dielectric material. Such a system and method is extremely broad for the disclosed specification.
(B) the nature of the invention is a system “wherein a distortion in spacetime is generated” or “altering light in space time” by emitting a laser beam through a resonant cavity filled with a dielectric material. In claims 8 and 10, a warp field and warping space time is claimed. However, no scientific proof has been given to back these claims. The one journal article cited by Alcubierre, is a theoretical, speculative warp drive idea, and there is no proof that the construction of such a system is possible.
(C) the state of the prior art is that to the best of the examiner’s knowledge, this type of warping of space time has never been demonstrated before. Again, the Alcubierre article is merely theoretical and there is no proof that the construction of such a system is possible.
(D) the level of ordinary skill in the art is that this type of field has only been written in theory and has never been reduced to practice.
(E) the level of predictability in the art is such that while generating a distortion in spacetime or altering light in space time have been written in theory, there is no proof of reduction to practice and therefore no predictability on how such a system would physically operate.
(F) the specification provides no direction as to how the device would work or how to measure how the device would work.
(G) working examples are not provided, and
(H) the experimentation required for the various ways to generate a distortion in spacetime is generated or altering light in space time using a resonant cavity filled with dielectric material would be a great amount.
As all factors point towards undue experimentation, based upon a weighing of the above factors the Office concludes that there would be undue experimentation for the claimed “wherein a warp field is generated in the resonant cavity when at least the portion of the laser beam captured by the optical sensor is distorted”, claim 8, and a “method for warping space time”, claims 10-13.
Claims 8-9 and 10-13 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 8-9 and 10-13 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, for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 9 and 11-13 are rejected based upon their dependency in claims 8 and 10.
Notes that in the event the rejections under 365 USC 101 and 112 are overcome, the examiner has rejected the claimed under 103, broadly but reasonably interpreting a distortion in spacetime and altering light in space time as any change in an electromagnetic field or change light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snitzer et al (US 3308394), hereinafter “Snitzer”, and further in view of Byer et al. (US 4860295), hereinafter “Byer”, and Carlson (US 2006/0014083).
Regarding claim 1, Snitzer teaches a system (abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 8, 9) comprising:
a resonant cavity (ref 70, col. 10, lines 18-25) at least partially filled with a liquid (col. 4, lines 9-15) dielectric material (col. 10, lines 20-30, bore 87 filled with helium);
a light source (Fig. 5, ref 28) configured to emit light through a hole in the resonant cavity (light from ref 84, col. 10, lines 10-15);
an optical sensor configured to capture at least a portion of laser beam that as passed through resonant cavity and generate a voltage based on the captured laser beam (Fig. 5, refs 34, 36, 38, col. 8, lines 30-55).
Snitzer is silent regarding wherein the light source is a laser source configured to emit a laser beam and the dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol.
However, Byer teaches a light amplification system (abstract) including wherein the light source is a laser source configured to emit a laser beam (col. 3, lines 22-27).
Furthermore, Carlson teaches an optical device (paragraph [0003]) including a dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol (paragraph [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Snitzer with the teaching of Byer and Carlson by including wherein the light source is a laser source configured to emit a laser beam and the dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol as Snitzer contemplates that it can be used with other devices and the laser will have a stronger incident light beam and ethylene glycol is a well-known fluid insulator, known for is dielectric properties, Carlson paragraph [0093].
Regarding claim 2, Snitzer teaches wherein the dielectric material has complex permittivity (col. 10, lines 25-27; Helium has small imaginary component to its permittivity).
Regarding claim 3, Snitzer teaches wherein the complex permittivity of the dielectric material is
PNG
media_image1.png
40
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein ɛ is a permittivity of the dielectric material, ɛR is the complext permittivity of the dielectric material and i is an imaginary part of a dielectric constant (col. 10, lines 25-27; Helium has small imaginary component to its permittivity).
Regarding claim 5, Snitzer is silent regarding wherein the resonant cavity is a cylinder having a diameter equal to a half wavelength of the dielectric material.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the resonant cavity is a cylinder having a diameter equal to a half wavelength of the dielectric material, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). One would be motived to choose the claimed dimensions as a matter of trial and error.
Regarding claim 6, Snitzer teaches wherein the hole of the resonant cavity extends lengthwise along a center of the resonant cavity (as shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Snitzer teaches an oscilloscope configured to measure the voltage generated by the optical sensor (Fig. 5, ref 38, col. 8, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 8, Snitzer teaches wherein a distortion in spacetime is generated in the resonant cavity when at least the portion of the laser beam captured by the optical sensor is distorted (This limitation is contingent on “when at least the portion of the laser beam captured” and does not structurally change the system. In the alternative, the examiner broadly but reasonably interprets this as an inherent quality of the changing electromagnetic field passing through the cavity as distorting spacetime)
Regarding claim 9, Snitzer teaches a processor configured to determine whether energy of the at least the portion of the laser beam captured at the output sensor fluctuates from energy of the laser beam emitted by the laser source (the oscilloscope 38 contains a processor that performs this function col. 8, lines 30-60).
Regarding claim 10, Snitzer teaches a method for altering light in space time (abstract, Figs. 1, 5, 8, 9; when the recitation in the preamble are reciting purpose or intended use, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See MPEP 211.02, Sec. II), the method comprising:
filling a resonant cavity (ref 70, col. 10, lines 18-25) at least partially with a liquid (col. 4, lines 9-15) dielectric material (col. 10, lines 20-30, bore 87 filled with helium);
emitting light through a hole in the resonant cavity (light from ref 84, col. 10, lines 10-15); and
capturing, at least a portion of laser beam that as passed through resonant cavity and generate a voltage based on the captured laser beam (Fig. 5, refs 34, 36, 38, col. 8, lines 30-55).
Snitzer is silent regarding wherein the light is a laser beam and the dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol.
However, Byer teaches a light amplification method (abstract) including wherein the light is a laser beam (col. 3, lines 22-27).
Furthermore, Carlson teaches an optical device (paragraph [0003]) including a dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol (paragraph [0093]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Snitzer with the teaching of Byer and Carlson by including wherein the light source is a laser source configured to emit a laser beam and the dielectric material including at least ethylene glycol as Snitzer contemplates that it can be used with other devices and the laser will have a stronger incident light beam and ethylene glycol is a well-known fluid insulator, known for is dielectric properties, Carlson paragraph [0093].
Regarding claim 11, Snitzer teaches measuring, by an oscilloscope, the voltage generated by the optical sensor (Fig. 5, ref 38, col. 8, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 12, Snitzer teaches distorting, by the resonant cavity, at least the portion of the laser beam captured by the optical sensor; and generating, by the resonant cavity, an altered light field based on the distortion of at least the portion of the laser beam (the examiner broadly but reasonably interprets distorting a laser beam and generating an altered light field as an inherent phenomenon that happens when the light travels through the resonant cavity).
Regarding claim 13, Snitzer teaches determining, by a processor, whether energy of at least the portion of the laser beam captured at the output sensor fluctuates from energy of the laser beam emitted by the laser source (the oscilloscope 38 contains a processor that performs this function col. 8, lines 30-60).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877