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 . This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication
filed on 11.25.25. In view of this communication, claims 21-40 are now pending in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11.25.25 has been entered.
It appears the inventor(s) 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(s) 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.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
The Applicant has canceled previous independent claims 1-20 and added new independent claims 21, 32 along with new dependents 22-31, 33-40 which will be examined below.
Claims 12, 14-20 objections related to previous Office Action are withdrawn as claims are canceled.
With respect to 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 rejections, the Applicant provides arguments to which the Examiner will respond accordingly. Further Applicant has added new claims which will be prosecuted in below sections.
Applicant Argument 1: Regarding Section 2107, in part II: IS THERE AN ASSERTED OR WELL-ESTABLISHED UTILITY FOR THE CLAIMED INVENTION? Lines 2-3 says: " A complete disclosure should include a statement which identifies a specific and substantial utility for the invention."; in other words, identify a real world use and a public benefit derived from the invention. In the published specification (US 2024/0333121 A1), [0070: 6-7 says: "...the propulsion drive can be employed to propel a vehicle in the forward direction as well as in reverse." This assertion identifies a public benefit, a well- established utility, and is a very useful function applicable to land driven motor vehicles, as well as for airplanes during flight and landing. This function is a real world use from which the public can derive the benefit to propel the land driven motor vehicles as well as airplanes with the invention. In [0071] "In an airplane, the propulsion system can propel the craft forward thrust for takeoff and flight, and also provide reverse thrust during landing to slow down and even stop the craft. The same propulsion is adaptable for use in passenger cars to drive the car forward or in reverse." These statements satisfy the section 101 requirement for showing real world use or a well-established utility; and a public benefit. Propelling vehicles such as airplanes in the air, thrust reversal during airplane landing, and propel land driven motor vehicles on the ground; are examples of real world utilizations. These two cases in the specification; are examples of asserted, specific, substantial, and well-established utilities that satisfy §101.
Examiner Response 1: As summarized in Examiner Interview dated 11.24.25, Examiner stated that “ examination is done based on the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. In the case of the instant invention, the asserted utility of propulsion is not credible because the force being generated as a result of the structure claimed is an internal force and therefore cannot propel”. Examiner maintains this response as propulsion with an internal force is in contradiction with established laws of physics such as Newtons laws of motion.
Claim Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claims 22-23 recite “said motor means spin said rotor” which should be corrected to “said motor means to spin said rotor”.
b. Claim 29 recites “said radial magnetic field; generate a magnetic field vortex” wherein underlined should be removed. Claim 35 has similar issue.
c. Claim 32 recites “radial magnetic field; generate a Lorentz force” wherein underlined should be removed and “generate” should be “generates”. Claim 40 has similar issue.
Examiner requests a thorough review for similar issues .Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 21-23,34 recite “motor means”. Examiner is interpreting motor means same as “The rotor carrying magnet is driven by motor means such as an electric motor or other mechanical motor means of motion to spin the rotor” as recited under Summary on Invention in Page 3 of instant specification.
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 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a substantially asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Applicant’s independent claim 1 recite “A system comprising: motor means to spin a magnet rotor at a predetermined angular velocity in order to provide an axial magnetic field in motion with the predetermined angular velocity, a magnet stator generating a radial magnetic field for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field, whereby said axial magnetic field in motion interact magnetically with said radial magnetic field to generate a propulsive Lorentz force”. Figs 3-4 of instant application discloses a magnetic field 36 rotating around an axis 34. This rotating magnetic field interacts with a stationary magnetic field 40. Examiner understands that there will be a force generation due to the interaction of these perpendicular magnetic fields, however these are internal forces and will contradict Newton laws of motion which require an external force in order to create propulsion. Therefore the asserted utility of propulsion is not credible (See MPEP2107.01.II). (See also MPEP608.03 37 CFR 1.91 for any working model) . Claims 22-31 are rejected as they are dependent upon claim 21.
To advance prosecution, Examiner will interpret claim 1 same as ”generate a Lorentz force”.
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 21-31 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 substantially 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.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-30, 32-39, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tavarez (US20220037971A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Tavarez discloses (Figs 1B, 4A, 5) a system comprising:
motor means (40) to spin a magnet rotor (28) at a predetermined angular velocity (w,any rotating velocity can be taken as predetermined) in order to provide an axial (46 AA) magnetic field (Magnetic field associated with magnet 28 has axis AA) in motion with the predetermined angular velocity,
a magnet stator (42) generating a radial (48 is an a radial direction given AA is axial. Applicant has not sufficiently recited the structure of radial magnetic field in claim, therefore any direction can be “a radial”) magnetic field (stator NS is perpendicular to rotor NS) for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field in motion (Fig 4A) ,
whereby said axial magnetic field in motion interact magnetically with said radial magnetic field to generate a Lorentz force (interacting magnetic fields of rotating 28 with stationary 42 will generate a force 24 Para 0037).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
188
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
300
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said motor means (40) to spin said rotor (28) at said predetermined angular velocity is an electric motor (Para 0045).
Regarding Claim 23, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said motor means (40) to spin said rotor (28) at said predetermined angular velocity is a mechanical motor, wherein said motor is an internal combustion engine (Para 0045 discloses “internal combustion engines” which is mechanical).
Regarding Claim 24, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said rotor (28) comprising a permanent magnet (28NS) [Para 0046] generate said axial magnetic field (Fig 4A, 46) for magnetic field interaction with said radial magnetic field (Fig 4A, 48).
Regarding Claim 25, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said rotor (28) comprising an electromagnet (Para 0014) generate said axial magnetic field (46) for magnetic field interaction with said radial magnetic field (48).
Regarding Claim 26, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said stator (42) comprising a permanent magnet (Para 0048) generate said radial magnetic field (48) for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field (46).
Regarding Claim 27, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said stator (42) comprising an electromagnet (Para 0048) generate said radial magnetic field (48) for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field (46).
Regarding Claim 28, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said stator radial magnetic field (48) is angularly disposed to said axial magnetic field (46), further including said radial magnetic field angularly disposed perpendicular to said axial magnetic field (Fig 4A discloses perpendicular magnetic fields).
Regarding Claim 29, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said magnetic field interaction between said axial magnetic field in motion (46) inside the stationary magnetic field space of said radial magnetic field (48) generate a magnetic field vortex (this is inherent as structure is same), wherein said vortex generate a directional Lorentz force (Para 0037).
Regarding Claim 30, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses
wherein said rotor (28) is a cylindrical body (Fig 5) of predetermined axial and radial dimensions (any chosen dimension is predetermined).
Regarding Claim 32, Tavarez discloses (Figs 1B, 4A, 5) a method (method is in structure) for generating a Lorentz force (Para 0037) comprising:
providing an axial (AA) magnetic field (46) in motion at a predetermined angular velocity (any rotating velocity can be taken as predetermined); comprising angular momentum and energy of motion (this is inherent as 28 is in motion)for magnetic field interaction with at least one radial magnetic field (48 is an a radial direction given AA is axial. Applicant has not sufficiently recited the structure of radial magnetic field in claim, therefore any direction can be “a radial”),
providing an angularly (46 and 48 are perpendicular) disposed stationary radial magnetic field (48) for magnetic field interaction (Fig 4A) with said axial magnetic field in motion in the magnetic field space of the radial magnetic field,
whereby, the magnetic field interaction between said axial magnetic field in motion at a predetermined angular velocity with said angularly disposed radial magnetic field generates a Lorentz force (Para 0037).
Regarding Claim 33, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses wherein a rotor (28) comprising a permanent magnet [0046] generate said axial (AA) magnetic field spinning with said predetermined angular velocity (w); endow said axial magnetic field with said angular momentum and energy of motion, wherein said rotor is a cylindrical body of predetermined axial and radial dimensions, further including an electric motor to spin said rotor.
Regarding Claim 34, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein a rotor (28) comprising an electromagnet (Para 0014) generate said axial magnetic field spinning with said predetermined angular velocity; endow said axial magnetic field (46) with said angular momentum and energy of motion (this is inherent as 28 is in motion), wherein said rotor is a cylindrical body (Fig 5) of predetermined axial and radial dimensions (any chosen dimension is predetermined), further including said motor means as an electric motor(40) [0045] to spin said rotor.
Regarding Claim 35, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein a rotor (28) of predetermined axial and radial dimensions comprising a permanent magnet [0046] generates said axial magnetic field spinning with said predetermined angular velocity endow the axial magnetic field with said angular momentum and energy of motion, further including a mechanical motor to spin said rotor (Para 0045 discloses “internal combustion engines” which is mechanical).
Regarding Claim 36, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein a rotor (28) comprising an electromagnet [0014] generate said axial magnetic field spinning with said predetermined angular velocity endow the axial magnetic field with said angular momentum and energy of motion, further including a mechanical motor [0045] to spin said rotor.
Regarding Claim 39, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein said angularly disposed radial magnetic field (48) further including said radial magnetic field angularly disposed perpendicular (Fig 4A) to said axial magnetic field (46).
Regarding Claim 40, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein said magnetic field interaction between said axial magnetic field in motion (46) in the magnetic field space of said radial magnetic field (48) generate a magnetic field vortex, wherein the magnetic field vortex generates a directional Lorentz force [0037].
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.
Claims 31,37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavarez in view of Purvis (US20160254737A1).
Regarding Claim 31, Tavarez discloses the system in claim 21. Tavarez further discloses wherein said stator (42) is an
Purvis discloses (Figs 4A,4B) stator (13,17) is an annular body (Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed system of Tavarez with annular stator body of Purvis in order to have close interaction with magnetic field of rotor.
PNG
media_image4.png
552
452
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 37, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein a stator (42) comprising a permanent magnet [0048] generate said radial magnetic field (46) for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field (46), wherein the stator can be
Purvis discloses (Figs 4A,4B) stator (13,17) is annular (Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed system of Tavarez with annular stator of Purvis in order to have close interaction with magnetic field of rotor.
Regarding Claim 38, Tavarez discloses the method in claim 32. Tavarez further discloses
wherein a stator (42) comprising an electromagnet [0048] generate said radial magnetic field (46) for magnetic field interaction with said axial magnetic field (46), wherein the stator can be
Purvis discloses (Figs 4A,4B) stator (13,17) is annular (Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed system of Tavarez with annular stator of Purvis in order to have close interaction with magnetic field of rotor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834