DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 01/26/2026 amending Claims 3, 4, and 12 and canceling Claims 6, 10, 11, 15, and 16. Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 9, 12 – 14, and 17 – 19 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 01/26/2026. These drawings are NOT acceptable.
Figs. 1 - 3 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because the text is too small. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) states “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. All the text in each drawing must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct”.
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 – 5, 7 – 9, 12 – 14, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks credible utility. Claim 1, l. 1 recites “A super high frequency propulsor…”. Claim 12, l. 1 recites “A propulsor…”. Claim 17, l. 1 recites “A super high frequency propulsor…”. Para. [0005] disclosed “The super high frequency propulsors uses this Magnetic-Physical interaction to generate a mechanical force. This orchestrated alignment of Electromagnetic Induction may generate a controllable and directed origin of this thrust, which necessitates solely the input of electrical current to function”. Para. [0007] disclosed “The effect of Magnetostriction is another principle contributor to thrust in this system. Magnetostriction is the property of physical compounds that change shape under applied magnetic fields.” Para. [0008] disclosed “The principle behind SHF Electromagnetism as thrust is the utilization of fluctuating magnetic fields and unique materials to generate asymmetric magnetomechanical force in a closed loop”. Para. [0009] disclosed “This system best exploits the commonplace effects of magnetostriction and EMF phenomena as a method of spacecraft propulsion. The prospect of a mechanism of generating thrust that requires only electrical current and the exploitation of magnetic phenomena could revolutionize spaceflight and space-enterprise, industry, transportation, national-defense, and lead to the innovation of other as of yet unknown technologies such as magnetic actuators and sensors. A functional design for propellant-less spacecraft may convey economic, social and existential benefit”. Para. [0030] disclosed “Further on, a force study gives the estimation of net thrust between two coaxial rings.” Para. [0032] disclosed “The challenge arises when attempting to extrapolate magnetorestriction to generate significant thrust or propulsion at larger scales, especially in the context of high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Conventional understanding suggests that the forces generated through magnetorestriction at the atomic scale are relatively small.” Para. [0044] disclosed “By leveraging the Lorentz force in conjunction with other mechanisms like Magnetostriction, Joule Heating, and magnetic field diode principles, the thruster design can enhance the asymmetric net force generation, thereby improving its efficiency and effectiveness as a propulsion system.” Therefore, the claimed invention is a type of “reactionless drive” that violates the law of conservation of momentum. Wikipedia webpage “Reactionless drive”, pp. 1 - 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive accessed on 06/16/2025] stated:
“A reactionless drive is a hypothetical device producing motion without the exhaust of a propellant. A propellantless drive is not necessarily reactionless when it constitutes an open system interacting with external fields; but a reactionless drive is a particular case of a propellantless drive that is a closed system, presumably in contradiction with the law of conservation of momentum. Reactionless drives are often considered similar to a perpetual motion machine.[1] The name comes from Newton's third law, often expressed as: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Many infeasible reactionless drives are a staple of science fiction for space propulsion.”
“Reactionless drives” that generate a propulsive force in a first direction without ejecting any mass in a second direction which is opposite to the first direction are impossible because they violate the law of conservation of momentum which states that in a closed system, like applicant’s disclosed propulsor, where the propulsor does not exchange any matter with its surroundings and is not acted on by external forces, then the momentum remains constant. The equation for momentum was: p = m x v, where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v is the velocity. Since applicant’s disclosed propulsor does not eject any mass, the mass (m = constant) of the propulsor was constant and with constant momentum (p = constant), then the velocity (v = constant) to satisfy the law of conservation of momentum. This was known as Newton’s first law of motion which stated that a body (propulsor) remains at rest (velocity = zero) or in motion with a constant velocity (v = constant) unless an external force acts, e.g., friction, drag, or external propulsion force, on the body. Marc G. Millis, “Assessing Potential Propulsion Breakthroughs”, NASA/TM-2005-213998, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center, December 2005, hereinafter “Millis” teaches, on Pg. 2, fourth paragraph, “The rocket equation is typically derived starting with conservation of momentum, where the momentum of the rocket in one direction must equal the momentum of expelled propellant in the other”. Equation 1.1 was the simplified conservation of momentum equations for a conventional rocket (r) where the left side of the equation represent the momentum of the expelled propellant and the right side represent the corresponding momentum of the accelerated rocket.
− vedm = dvr (m - dm)
Where: m = mass of the rocket (including stored propellant), dm = incremental mass of expelled propellant, dvr = incremental change in velocity of the rocket (in the direction of motion, hence the positive sign), and ve = exhaust velocity of propellant (opposite to the direction of the rocket motion, hence the negative sign). Fig. A illustrates the simplified conservation of momentum equations for a conventional rocket.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, as discussed above, applicant’s invention is a propellant-less propulsor that allegedly generates thrust using only electrical current and the exploitation of magnetic phenomena. Millis teaches, on Pg. 15, bottom half of page, two categories of propellant-less propulsor that failed to generate a net thrust. Millis teaches that oscillation thrusters and gyroscopic devices appearance of creating net thrust was attributable to misinterpretations of normal mechanical effects. Millis teaches, on Pg. 15, last paragraph, “There has not yet been any viable theory or experiment that reliably demonstrates that a genuine, external, net thrust can be obtained with one of these devices. If such tests are ever produced, and if a genuine new effect is found, then science will have to be revised, because it would then appear that such devices are violating Conservation of Momentum.” On Pgs. 16 – 17, Millis discusses several other categories of nonviable, i.e., failed to produce an external net thrust, propulsors and unresolved approaches. Applicant’s disclosed invention appears to be similar to the Abraham—Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum propulsion method since Applicant’s disclosure described, in Para. [0008], using Electromagnetism of fluctuating/oscillating magnetic fields to generate asymmetric magnetomechanical force that results in a net force in a first direction. Millis teaches, on Pg. 16, under heading “Abraham—Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum”, that there is still debate concerning momentum within dielectric media. Millis teaches, on Pg. 16, first full paragraph, “In all of the proposed propulsion methods, the anticipated forces are relatively small (comparable to experimental noise) and critical issues remain unresolved. In particular, the conversion of an oscillatory force into a net force remains questionable and the issue of generating external forces from different internal momenta remains unproven”. Wikipedia webpage “EmDrive”, pp. 1 - 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive accessed on 07/17/2025] was another propellant-less propulsor where asymmetric forces inside the thruster would have allegedly generated a net force resulting in thrust in one direction without expelling any mass in the opposite direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
744
927
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, subsequent experiments proved that all of the published results showing thrust had been false positives (measured thrust was less than the experiment's margin of error), explaining each by outside forces. Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology concluded, "Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude”. Millis teaches, on Pg. 12, last paragraph that “Compared to other propulsion research, new propulsion physics is at its infancy. It is expected, therefore, that any practical embodiment is years, perhaps decades away, if not impossible. Although breakthroughs, by their very definition, happen sooner than expected, no breakthrough is genuine until it has been proven to be genuine. Hence, the reliability of the information is a paramount prerequisite to the validity of any conclusions”. Accordingly, the claimed and disclosed invention lacks credible utility and therefore is considered inoperative. Claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 13 and 14 depend from Claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 18 and 19 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Working Model Requirement
Pursuant to 35 USC 114 and 37 CFR 1.91(b), the United States Patent and Trademark Office is authorized to require a working model of an invention for which patent protection is sought. Because of the basic question of operability in this case, it is deemed appropriate to invoke that authority. Consequently, in order to overcome the above 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, applicant is required to demonstrate the operability of his invention by way of a working model. For example, Applicant can demonstrate the operability by securing the working model and its power supply to the distal end of a hanging pendulum thrust stand so that there are no cables, wires, or other means physically connecting the working model and its power supply to any other structures except for said distal end of the hanging pendulum thrust stand. By pivoting the distal end of the pendulum so that the line from the pivot point to the distal end was at a fixed and substantially constant angle relative to the direction of gravity, the working model of the invention would demonstrate operability of producing propulsive thrust.
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 1 – 5, 7 – 9, 12 – 14, and 17 – 19 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. Claim 1, l. 1 recites “A super high frequency propulsor…”. Claim 12, l. 1 recites “A propulsor…”. Claim 17, l. 1 recites “A super high frequency propulsor…”. Para. [0005] disclosed “The super high frequency propulsors uses this Magnetic-Physical interaction to generate a mechanical force. This orchestrated alignment of Electromagnetic Induction may generate a controllable and directed origin of this thrust, which necessitates solely the input of electrical current to function”. Para. [0007] disclosed “The effect of Magnetostriction is another principle contributor to thrust in this system. Magnetostriction is the property of physical compounds that change shape under applied magnetic fields.” Para. [0008] disclosed “The principle behind SHF Electromagnetism as thrust is the utilization of fluctuating magnetic fields and unique materials to generate asymmetric magnetomechanical force in a closed loop”. Para. [0009] disclosed “This system best exploits the commonplace effects of magnetostriction and EMF phenomena as a method of spacecraft propulsion. The prospect of a mechanism of generating thrust that requires only electrical current and the exploitation of magnetic phenomena could revolutionize spaceflight and space-enterprise, industry, transportation, national-defense, and lead to the innovation of other as of yet unknown technologies such as magnetic actuators and sensors. A functional design for propellant-less spacecraft may convey economic, social and existential benefit”. Para. [0030] disclosed “Further on, a force study gives the estimation of net thrust between two coaxial rings.” Para. [0032] disclosed “The challenge arises when attempting to extrapolate magnetorestriction to generate significant thrust or propulsion at larger scales, especially in the context of high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Conventional understanding suggests that the forces generated through magnetorestriction at the atomic scale are relatively small.” Para. [0044] disclosed “By leveraging the Lorentz force in conjunction with other mechanisms like Magnetostriction, Joule Heating, and magnetic field diode principles, the thruster design can enhance the asymmetric net force generation, thereby improving its efficiency and effectiveness as a propulsion system.” Therefore, the claimed invention is a type of “reactionless drive” that violates the law of conservation of momentum. Wikipedia webpage “Reactionless drive”, pp. 1 - 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive accessed on 06/16/2025] stated:
“A reactionless drive is a hypothetical device producing motion without the exhaust of a propellant. A propellantless drive is not necessarily reactionless when it constitutes an open system interacting with external fields; but a reactionless drive is a particular case of a propellantless drive that is a closed system, presumably in contradiction with the law of conservation of momentum. Reactionless drives are often considered similar to a perpetual motion machine.[1] The name comes from Newton's third law, often expressed as: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Many infeasible reactionless drives are a staple of science fiction for space propulsion.”
When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims a high frequency propulsor comprising: an emitter coil, a receptor ring, a magnetic coaxial core, wherein the magnetic coaxial core is coupled to and positions the emitter coil opposite the receptor ring, and a housing made of a non-conductive material.; (B) the nature of the invention – a propellant-less propulsor also known as a reactionless drive (no propellant or other mass is ejected to produce propulsion) that relies on speculative physics where just the input of electricity generates asymmetric magnetomechanical forces in a closed loop resulting in a net thrust in one direction.; (C) the state of the prior art - there is no operational system because reactionless drives, i.e., propellant-less propulsors, only exist in Science Fiction and do not exist in the real world. Applicant’s disclosed invention appears to be similar to the Abraham—Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum propulsion method since Applicant’s disclosure described, in Para. [0008], using Electromagnetism of fluctuating/oscillating magnetic fields to generate asymmetric magnetomechanical force that results in a net force in a first direction. Millis teaches, on Pg. 16, under heading “Abraham—Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum”, that there is still debate concerning momentum within dielectric media. Millis teaches, on Pg. 16, first full paragraph, “In all of the proposed propulsion methods, the anticipated forces are relatively small (comparable to experimental noise) and critical issues remain unresolved. In particular, the conversion of an oscillatory force into a net force remains questionable and the issue of generating external forces from different internal momenta remains unproven”. Wikipedia webpage “EmDrive”, pp. 1 - 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive accessed on 07/17/2025] was another propellant-less propulsor where asymmetric forces inside the thruster would have allegedly generated a net force resulting in thrust in one direction without expelling any mass in the opposite direction, see Fig. B above. However, subsequent experiments proved that all of the published results showing thrust had been false positives (measured thrust was less than the experiment's margin of error), explaining each by outside forces. Martin Tajmar's group at the Dresden University of Technology concluded, "Our measurements refute all EmDrive claims by at least 3 orders of magnitude”.; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill – PhD in Physics; (E) the level of predictability in the art – High predictability in the art because reactionless drives like the claimed and disclosed “high frequency propulsor” violate the laws of Physics like the law of conservation of momentum. Therefore, Applicant’s invention is considered by physicists to be pseudoscience since it is based on speculative physics outside the mainstream of accepted theories. EmDrive teaches, on Pg. 1, under heading “History and controversy”, “Rocket engines operate by expelling propellant, which acts as a reaction mass and which produces thrust per Newton's third law of motion. All designs for electromagnetic propulsion operate on the principle of reaction mass. A hypothetical drive which did not expel propellant in order to produce a reaction force, providing thrust while being a closed system with no external interaction, would be a reactionless drive, violating the conservation of momentum and Newton's third law.[18] Reactionless drives, like other forms of perpetual motion, do not exist in nature, and claims that a drive is reactionless are considered by physicists to be pseudoscience.” Millis teaches, Equation 1.1 in Pg. 2, fourth paragraph, “The rocket equation is typically derived starting with conservation of momentum, where the momentum of the rocket in one direction must equal the momentum of expelled propellant in the other”, see Fig. A above. On Pgs. 15 – 17, Millis discusses several categories of nonviable, i.e., failed to produce an external net thrust, propellant-less propulsors and other unresolved approaches. Millis teaches, on Pg. 15, last paragraph, “There has not yet been any viable theory or experiment that reliably demonstrates that a genuine, external, net thrust can be obtained with one of these devices. If such tests are ever produced, and if a genuine new effect is found, then science will have to be revised, because it would then appear that such devices are violating Conservation of Momentum.” Consequently, there is a very high level of predictability that the claimed and disclosed invention is inoperative.; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention. As discussed in the 35 USC §101 rejections above, the claimed “high frequency propulsor” violates the law of conservation of momentum and other the laws of Physics. Consequently, Applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention.; (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: ten or more years since current physics regards the device as inoperable since its operation depends on speculative physics that would violate at least the law of conservation of momentum. Millis teaches, on Pg. 12, last paragraph that “Compared to other propulsion research, new propulsion physics is at its infancy. It is expected, therefore, that any practical embodiment is years, perhaps decades away, if not impossible.” It has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)]. Claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 9 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 13 and 14 depend from Claim 12 and are rejected for the same reasons. Claims 18 and 19 depend from Claim 17 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 11, first paragraph that “The claimed invention discloses a reaction between electromagnetic energy and electromagnetic materials that are arranged in an inventive manner to generate propulsion. Applicant's claimed invention has been experimentally verified and as such the assertion in the NFOA is conclusory.” This argument is not persuasive the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); MPEP 2145. Applicant has failed to cite any evidence in the record of hard test data of a working model of Applicant’s invention generating propulsive thrust that has been verified by an independent third party. Computer simulations do not qualify as experimentally verified test data because unknown assumptions are usually made to simplify the calculations so the available computational power can complete a simulation in a reasonable amount of time. Any engineer or scientist that has run computer simulations knows that said computer simulations can fail to converge to a solution or converges to an incorrect solution. See the working model requirement on Pg. 10 above. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights