Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/701,746

VEHICLE FOR OBTAINING LINEAR MOMENTUM WITHOUT THROWING THE MASS FROM THE VEHICLE IN THE SPACE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Apr 16, 2024
Examiner
WOLDEMARYAM, ASSRES H
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
577 granted / 696 resolved
+30.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
737
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
41.2%
+1.2% vs TC avg
§102
26.5%
-13.5% vs TC avg
§112
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 696 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in regards to application # 18/701,746 that was filed on 04/16/2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending and are under examination. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the structures in the drawings are not clearly visible, a clear wireframe drawings need to be provided (e.g., the line inside each structures make it difficult to clearly distinguish one structure from the other). 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 Objections Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the number and number-letters (e.g., 1, 13, 3A, 3B, etc.) used to distinguish each structures in the claims need to be deleted. Extra caution is advised not to create antecedent basis problem under 35 USC 112 when the numbers and number-letters are deleted (e.g. between a motor 3A and a motor 3B; between a shaft 4A and a shaft 4B etc.). A clear claim limitation need to provided. 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 1-15 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. Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the mass" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the space" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 is recites the limitation "the angular momentum" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the mass" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the adjuster" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the blades" in lines 3-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the thrust structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the blades" in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the motors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the adjuster" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is recites the limitation "the adjuster" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 3-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in lines 3 and 6-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the electromagnets" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the adjuster" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the shafts" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the lock structures" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 7 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is recites the limitation "the shafts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is recites the limitation "the motors" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the mass" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 10 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is recites the limitation "the mass" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is recites the limitation "the space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is recites the limitation "the mass" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is recites the limitation "the space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 14 is recites the limitation "the blades" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is recites the limitation "the circular motion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim Claim 15 is recites the limitation "the blades" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 3, 6, 7-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim (“multiple dependent claim”) shall refer to such claims in the alternative only. Claim 3 seem to depend from claim 1 and 2; claim 6 seem to depend from claims 4 and 5; claim 7 seem to depend from claims 4,5, and 6; claim 8 seem to depend from claims 4, 5, and 6; claim 11 seem to depend from claims 9 and 10. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner’s note: the applicant is hereby strongly advised to carefully look at the apparatus claim 1 and unclear independent method claims 4, 9, 14 not to be subject to election/restriction requirement in the reply to this office action. The method claims seem distinct from the apparatus claim, but also not clear from the limitations if they are dependent claim from the apparatus claim or not (i.e. since the vehicle claimed in claim 1 is also recited in the method claims….see the 35 USC 112 rejections). The method claims should mirror the claimed apparatus claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tavarez (US 2010/0180570) discloses a vehicle for obtaining linear momentum without throwing the mass from the vehicle in the space (Tavarez clearly disclose in the abstract that reactionless Motion (RM) is a mechanically intrinsic motion technic, without motion opposites' reaction, or mass expelling). Tavarez also discloses that a thrust can be produced in wheels' axles without lineal opposite reaction and said thrust perpendicularly to the forces wherein wheel comprising an electromagnets arrangement in their circumferences. Tavarez fails to disclose motors, their shaft, adjusters and blades that generate centripetal force and the joining arrangement of blade and adjuster as arranged as per claim 1 of the instant invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM. 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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. Assres H. Woldemaryam Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics) Art Unit 3642 /ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601154
TRENCH MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596183
SENSING DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595051
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RETRACTING LIFT PROPELLER IN EVTOL AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593128
VIBRATION DAMPING GIMBAL SLEEVE FOR AN AERIAL VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589893
DEBRIS REMOVAL SATELLITE, DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTROL APPARATUS, DEBRIS REMOVAL CONTROL METHOD, AND GROUND FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+11.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 696 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month