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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered. Claims 13, 17–19, 21–23, 25, and 30 have been cancelled. Claims 1–12, 14–16, 20, 24, and 26–29 are pending. The disposition of each ground of the previous Office action is set forth below.
Drawings: In view of the replacement drawing sheets filed 06/08/2026 and the deletion of “accelerator” from the claims, the objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) set forth in paragraph 1 of the previous Office action is withdrawn. The replacement sheets are accepted.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b): Applicant’s argument that the term “energy storage ring” is definite because its structural composition is recited within claim 1 itself is persuasive; the rejection of that term under paragraph 6.g of the previous Office action is withdrawn. The rejections directed to limitations that have been deleted, cancelled, or rephrased by the present amendment (paragraphs 6.g as to “accelerator,” 6.h, 6.i, 6.j, and 6.k of the previous Office action) are withdrawn as moot. Applicant’s argument that formulas whose variables are defined with appropriate units within the claims provide reasonable certainty under Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) is persuasive as to the formula recitations of claims 8, 10, 11, 26, and 27, and the rejection under paragraph 6.l of the previous Office action is withdrawn to that extent. New and remaining issues under § 112(b), each arising from the amendment filed 06/08/2026, are set forth below.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a): Applicant’s arguments with respect to the enablement and written description rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The deletion of particular velocity and temperature recitations does not remove the claimed energy-storage function from the scope of the claims; the cited Wands showing describes fabrication of the static structure rather than achievement of the claimed function; and the six embodiments relied upon are design calculations rather than working examples. The rejections under § 112(a) are maintained as applied to the pending claims and are restated below with full responsive analysis.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a stator surrounding the rotor and having [JZ1.1]main magnetic poles.” The bracketed annotation “[JZ1.1]” is an extraneous editing artifact that forms no part of the claim and must be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, and 27 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. Each of the following grounds arises from the amendment filed 06/08/2026.
Claim 3 recites “as the thin-film cavities reach the end of the commutation rings, a distance between adjacent ones of the thin-film cavities approaches zero.” The phrase “approaches zero” purports to describe a static structural spacing by way of an unbounded limiting process. The claim provides no objective boundary establishing how small the distance must be in order to “approach” zero, and one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of whether a given spacing satisfies the limitation. The metes and bounds of the claim therefore cannot be determined.
Claim 9 recites “wherein b has three potential values: b1 is 2 times a width of a thin-film cavity; b2 is a pitch, and b3 is a polar distance.” It is unclear which of the three recited values the variable b takes for purposes of the recited relationship 1 ÷ (4f) = πm ÷ (2eB) ≥ b ÷ V, such that it cannot be determined whether a given device is “configured such that” the relationship is satisfied. Further, “a pitch” and “a polar distance” do not identify the structure to which the recited pitch and polar distance pertain. Claims 16, 20, and 27 are rejected for depending from claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiency.
Claim 11 recites “a size of the DC motor satisfies a formula La ≤ (πb) ÷ 4” and “a rotating speed of the DC motor is reduced.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the DC motor” in the claim: claim 1 as amended recites “an energy storage device,” and no DC motor is introduced in claims 1, 2, 10, or 11. It is unclear whether “the DC motor” refers to the claimed energy storage device or to a separate, unrecited motor, and the scope of the claim therefore cannot be determined. Claim 12 is rejected for depending from claim 11 and failing to cure the deficiency.
Claim 12 recites “the charged particles with the first mass are left in the energy storage ring and the charged particles with the first mass are derived from the energy storage ring by means of magnetic confinement.” The claim requires the same charged particles — those having “the first mass” — to be simultaneously retained in and removed from the energy storage ring. The recitation is internally inconsistent, and it cannot be determined which particles remain in and which are removed from the ring. It appears that “the second mass” may have been intended in the second instance; however, the claim as presented is indefinite.
Claim 14 recites “an air pressure inside the motor is pumped to 10⁻⁸ pa.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the motor”: claim 1 as amended recites “an energy storage device,” and no motor is introduced in claims 1, 2, 5, or 14.
Claim 16 recites “corresponding parameters are selected to meet a formula R = mV ÷ (eB).” The variable R is not defined in claim 16 or in any claim from which claim 16 depends (claims 9, 2, and 1), and the scope of the recited parameter selection therefore cannot be determined.
The preamble of claim 24 recites “The DC motor according to claim 1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “The DC motor”: claim 1 as amended recites “an energy storage device,” not a DC motor.
Claim 24 is further indefinite because it is an apparatus claim reciting method steps of using the apparatus: “a method for regulating a rotating speed of the energy storage device comprises: 1) using magnetic field weakening, wherein the rotating speed is regulated upward from a rated speed; 2) reducing a voltage of the charged particles in the thin-film cavities of the rotor....” A single claim that recites both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is made or when the recited method is performed. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005); MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II).
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 1–12, 14–16, 20, 24, and 26–29 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 claims contain 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. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as applied to the pending claims, for the following reasons.
The amended claims remain directed to an operative energy storage device, and the enablement inquiry extends to that claimed function. Claim 1 recites that “the rotor hollow tubes and the fixed hollow tubes constitute an energy storage ring” and that each fixed reversal hollow tube includes “a circular portion ... configured to reverse a flow direction of charged particles such that the charged particles flow through the two terminal portions in opposite directions.” The dependent claims expressly require operation: injection of charged particles into the thin-film cavities (claims 5, 6, 15, 29), storage of energy in the cavities under recited “operational parameters” (claims 8–12, 26, 27), stable operation by magnetic confinement (claim 16), cooling of high-speed moving charged particles (claim 20), and regulation of a rotating speed (claim 24). The deletion of particular velocity and temperature recitations therefore does not remove the energy-storage function from the scope of the claims; the specification must enable that function across the claimed scope.
The specification’s disclosed mechanism of operation is internally inconsistent. The charged particles are electrostatically suspended off the inner walls of the thin-film cavities by a same-polarity DC voltage precisely so that they do not contact the walls and incur no friction ([00101]–[00102]). At the same time, mechanical rotation of the rotor is said to accelerate those particles through “the transformation and transmission of Lorentz force” ([0003]; [0091]). A charged particle suspended in vacuum within a moving hollow tube is mechanically decoupled from that tube, and the magnetic component of the Lorentz force, F = qv × B, acts only in proportion to a velocity v that the particle already possesses; it cannot transfer the rotor’s mechanical energy to a particle held out of contact with the rotating structure. The specification discloses no structure or mechanism by which the rotating tube walls impart momentum to the suspended particles without contact. To the extent momentum transfer is instead attributed to collisions with co-injected neutral gas ([0051]; [0097]), collisional coupling thermalizes the input energy rather than producing the directed, recoverable kinetic energy the claims require, and the specification provides no disclosure reconciling collisional coupling with the frictionless electrostatic suspension upon which its confinement scheme depends.
Even the least energetic disclosed embodiment requires operating conditions the specification does not enable. The electric-vehicle embodiment — the embodiment Applicant characterizes as employing components conventional in the DC-motor art — requires approximately 16 grams of argon and charged particles circulating at 600 km/s ([00147]; [00196]–[00197]), corresponding to a kinetic energy of roughly 7 × 10⁴ eV per argon atom and an effective gas temperature on the order of 10⁸ K, confined at a pressure of about 0.31 atm ([00205]) within cavities partitioned by 30-micron “ultra-thin glass (which is bendable)” walls ([00151]) and held by inner-wall DC potentials on the order of 53 volts ([00144]; [00160]). The recited particle energies exceed the disclosed confining potentials by more than three orders of magnitude, and no disclosed structure — nor any structure known in the art — confines a gas at such particle energies with micron-scale glass partitions and tens of volts of same-polarity wall potential. Every disclosed embodiment operates in this regime or beyond it (600 km/s to 70% of the speed of light).
The specification contains no working examples. The six embodiments cited by Applicant consist of design calculations — selections of dimensions, flux densities, and particle species accompanied by arithmetic projections of stored energy. None reports a constructed device, a measurement, or experimental corroboration of any kind. Where an asserted result is contrary to accepted scientific principles, unsubstantiated calculations do not establish operability and do not carry Applicant’s burden once the Office has provided a reasonable basis to question enablement. In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Weighing the factors of In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988): the claims are broad (any energy storage device having the recited ring topology, storing any quantity of energy); the nature of the invention is a device whose asserted principle of operation — conversion of rotor mechanical energy into stored, recoverable kinetic energy of electrostatically suspended charged particles — is contrary to established electrodynamics for the reasons set forth in subparagraph (b); the prior art contains no operative device of this kind; predictability is absent because the asserted mechanism itself is not established; the specification’s direction is confined to fabrication of the static structure rather than achievement of the claimed function; and there are no working examples. The quantity of experimentation required to practice the claimed function would amount to independent invention of an operative energy-storage mechanism, which is undue as a matter of law.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are addressed as follows. The argument that amended claim 1 recites only structure is addressed in subparagraph (a): the claims recite functional limitations and the dependent claims recite operation. The spacecraft embodiment ([00349]–[00350]) addresses only ambient sealing; it does not supply the missing energy-transfer coupling or particle confinement, both of which are equally required in space. The cited sealing, insulation, and injection procedures ([00112]–[00116]) describe assembly of the structure, not achievement of the claimed energy-storage function.
Claims 1–12, 14–16, 20, 24, and 26–29 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 specification sets forth the desired result of storing recoverable kinetic energy in charged particles suspended within the thin-film cavities of the recited ring, together with design arithmetic projecting that result, but describes no operative means by which rotation of the rotor transfers energy to particles that the disclosure itself suspends out of contact with the rotating structure, and no operative means of confining particles at the disclosed energies within the disclosed micron-scale glass partitions and tens-of-volt wall potentials. A statement of a desired result, without disclosure of a mechanism within the inventor’s possession for achieving it, does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. The rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as applied to the pending claims.
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 extension fee 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights