DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 9/25/2025.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2025 along with a declaration filed on 9/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It appears that the declaration filed on 9/25/2025 does not add anything new of value to prosecution. Additionally, it appears the declaration filed on 9/25/2025 is merely information that was pulled from the specification. It does not address how polarizing air (even if possible) can increase energy output and reduce emissions of a diesel engine. Despite the Applicant’s claim that this apparatus has been installed in many vehicles and has shown an increase in engine output/increased efficiency, the table in exhibit c lacks how this data was collected (via a computer or operator writing it down), the sample size being worked with (1 single working example vs an average of multiple working examples), and what the data was being compared against and the specific sample size of the data being compared against. Additionally, it appears that these fuel savings could have occurred while the specific vehicles have encountered less traffic on a specific day or due to poor data collection methods or due to a different driver driving the same vehicle or a number of various other factors. The data provided does not appear to provide an accurate depiction of the whole results.
Applicant's declaration filed 9/25/2025 are mere allegations that the claimed invention will increase energy output and reduce emissions. Beyond allegations that the claimed invention will increase energy output and reduce emission, the applicant has not thoroughly provided an explanation of how polarized air will increase the power output of an engine or increase in engine efficiency or reducing emissions as claimed in the applicant’s specification. It is noted that the examiner believes the disclosure still does not 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.
Although the applicant appears to have presented certain data comparing the results of a diesel engine having the apparatus vs not having the apparatus the results appear overly optimistic. First, the examiner would like to note that although data is presented, it does not appear/show that all other variables are kept constant while only testing a diesel engine with and without the apparatus. For example a diesel engine starting at cold start for an engine without the apparatus could produce drastically different results from an engine starting at warm start with the apparatus. Second, the ambient conditions of both apparatus while being tested were not disclosed, it is not clear if the ambient conditions while testing each apparatus were similar or drastically different producing data that may or may not be reliable. Third, it is unclear of the length of the test to produce the scribed results. The results presented could merely have been the best result presented for particular data points which showed an increase in efficiency, while the average of the data at the same data points over time only showed trivial if any increases at all. Furthermore, it does not appear that the data provided shows any conclusive results as to whether having the apparatus produced the increase in efficiency (the increases in efficiency could have been due to factors other than having the apparatus of the present invention).
It is noted that the examiner is not saying that the invention is polarizing fuel. The examiner is merely comparing the present invention to In re Ruskin. Similar to In re Ruskin, the Applicant of the present application asserts an increase in power output of an engine can be achieved by use of an electric field. Although there are some minor differences, the overall methodology appears to be similar. In In re Ruskin, the increase in power output of an engine is claimed to have been a result of exposing fuel to a magnetic fuel. In the present application, the increase in power output of an engine is claimed to be a result of exposing air to a magnetic field. With air and fuel both being an input into an engine to produce the power output. Additionally both the inputs in In re Ruskin (exposing fuel to a magnetic field) and in the present application (exposing air to a magnetic field) have been alleged to produce the results of increases in engine output by a significantly large amount, thus linking the present application to that of In re Ruskin.
For the reasons set forth above, the examiner is maintaining the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35. U.S.C. 101.
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 11-22 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.
MPEP 2164.01 establishes the analysis required to determine whether the filed disclosure contains sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The factors to be considered to determine whether any necessary experimentation is undue, also known as The Wand factors, see In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
After consideration of claims 11-22 with regards to the above factors, the examiner concluded that there is no enabling disclosure of how the claimed apparatus is able to polarize air or air/gas to increase combustion efficiency and reduce emissions. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the present invention was filed would not know how to polarize air or if it would be possible to polarize air given the limited available research and existence of working examples along with the applicant’s disclosure. Additionally, based on the generally speculative nature of the invention (polarizing air to increase energy output and reduce emissions of a diesel engine) and limited available research it is unclear that using polarized air (if possible) would increase the efficiency of an engine (increase power output and reduce emissions).
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 11-22 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.
Claims 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because it is unclear as to how the “polarizing cum filter mesh arrangement” (in at least claims 11 and 22) polarizes the air or air/gas and how the polarized air or air/gas is capable of increases engine output and reducing emissions by the amount disclosed in the 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.
Regarding claims 11-22, the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
In the MPEP 2107.01 Section II an example of an inoperative invention was a method for increasing the energy output of fossil fuels upon combustion through exposure to a magnetic field (In re Ruskin, 354 F.2d 395, 148 USPQ 221 (CCPA 1966)). Similarly to In re Ruskin, the Applicant of the present application asserts that the present invention increases the power output of a diesel vehicle at zero load by 21.36% (specification page 3) and reducing emissions by more than 50% from what appears to be using polarized air or air/gas via the claimed apparatus. Comparing the facts from In re Ruskin and the present Application, the inventive concepts appears to be very similar - using a magnetic field (in the present application, an apparatus for polarizing air or air/gas by what appears to be an electrostatic filter using a magnetic field) to improve the efficiency of combustion. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was conceived would question the asserted utility for at least the following reasons:
The generally speculative nature (polarizing air to increase energy output and reduce emissions of a diesel engine) of the scientific field to which the claimed subject matter relates;
The grandiose words used in certain instances to describe the results achieved by the invention (for example at least…. increasing output power of the diesel engine at zero load by 21.36% and reduce emission more than 50% using polarized air or air/gas);
Lack of existence of working examples where air can be polarized or where polarized air increases the efficiency of engine and reduces emissions;
The lack of availability of scientific research documenting that air can be polarized to increase power output and efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO EN MO whose telephone number is (571)272-9970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5:30 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/XIAO EN MO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747