DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The amendment filed 11 May 2026 has been entered.
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.
The disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Applicant claims a propulsion apparatus that violates the conservation of momentum. Examiner is interpreting the limitation “to generate a directional net force on the electromagnetic force generating apparatus as a whole” as a propulsive force acting on the apparatus. In Applicant’s specification, Applicants discloses on page 18, “{Effects of embodiments) According to the technology according to the present embodiment, it is possible to implement a propulsion device that generates a propulsive force capable of performing acceleration, deceleration, ana changing of a direction of a spacecraft with high-frequency power without using a propellant and without interacting with the outside.”
If a control volume is drawn around Applicant’s claimed device, then no mass would pass through the boundaries of the control volume. In such a device, there would be no change in momentum associated with the control volume. Yet, Applicant asserts that their device will generate a linear propulsive force involving an acceleration. This capability violates the conservation of momentum. As noted in Cartwright, “NASA’s engineer’s “helical device” may violate the laws of physics,” a number of recent conceptual propulsive devices that have claimed to generate thrust without a momentum change. As the article notes, “Neither concept has been successfully demonstrated and both are widely assumed to be impossible, due to violation of the conservation of momentum, a core physical law.” Thus, for the purposes of generating linear propulsion, i.e., as a propulsion apparatus, Applicant’s device is considered inoperative and lacks utility because it violates laws of nature.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility.
As discussed above, as a propulsion apparatus, Applicant’s invention violates the physical law of conservation of momentum and is therefore inoperative and lacks utility for this purpose.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 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 specific and substantial 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
If Applicant wishes the Examiner to allow this application, Applicant needs to build their device, have an independent entity test it, have the independent entity submit an affidavit attesting that the device generates a propulsive force. In lieu of this information, Applicant should file an Appeal.
Applicant argues that they have invented a device that doesn’t rely on the expulsion of propellant or the reflection of electromagnetic waves and yet is capable of propelling a device, i.e., generating a directional net force on the electromagnetic force generating apparatus as a whole, as claimed. In particular, if a control volume were drawn around Applicant’s device, no change in momentum would occur across the control volume. Yet, Applicant claims, via well-known electromagnetic principals, asserts a net force can be generated. This assertion violates known physical principals- no such device has ever been built or has ever been demonstrated. Because Applicant’s purported invention violates known scientific principles, it is not enough for Applicant to explain how it supposedly works without providing supporting experimental results.
Examiner provided an article that others have claimed to have invented a massless propulsion system based on electromagnetic forces. As the article points out, the devices violate known laws of physics and have never been proven to work via reproducible experimental results. Examiner is not saying these devices operate in the same manner as Applicant’s device. However, the article confirms that claims of massless propulsion have never been experimentally verified.
Examiner has cited the case, IN RE: HUPING HU, MAOXIN WU, which was appealed to the PTAB and then the CAFC. The case involves an invention that appear to rely on results that violate known laws of physics.
On page 17 it recites,
However, due to the absence of any known scientific principles explaining how Appellant’s invention could possibly operate in this manner, the absence of any cogent explanation in Appellant’s Specification regarding the general principals [sic] or mechanisms causing this to occur, and the absence of any verifiable test data reasonably attributable to the purported result, the Examiner reasonably characterized Appellant’s invention as being of an incredible nature.
On page 19, it recites,
The Board did not err in requiring Hu to establish the
operability of his asserted discoveries, in view of the conflict
with ordinary experience as well as with established scientific principles.
On page 19, it further recites,
The PTO, as the nation’s guardian of technologic invention, must be receptive to unusual concepts, for the core of invention is unobviousness. However, concepts that strain scientific principles are properly held to a heightened standard, typically measured by reproducibility of results.
On page 20, it recites,
“When a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OLYNICK whose telephone number is (571)272-2355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am-5 pm (ET).
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, Phuttiwat 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.
/DAVID P. OLYNICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights