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.
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. 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 1-6 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 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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. 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.
Applicant’s device doesn’t use exotic or expensive materials. It doesn’t require an elaborate set-up. It would work on the ground as well as in space. Applicant can simply build a device and then have an independent entity test it to show a force is generated. As discussed in the cited article, attempts at building such a device have not been successful. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/DAVID P. OLYNICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights