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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 6 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the examination of the species would not be a burden to the Examiner, and that the pending claims are linked by a single inventive concept at different physical scales rather than independent or distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because:
Regarding the examination burden, the claims of the three groups require different search areas as described in the restriction requirement. The invention of claim 1 requires a search for a specific vector potential equation, while the invention of claims 3-4 requires a search for a vehicle propulsion system without the specific vector potential, and claims 5-10 require a search for a specific quantum state expressed in terms of a force equation, which is not necessarily equivalent to the vector potential of claim 1 and is not used in a vehicle as described in claim 3.
Regarding the argument that the claims describe a single inventive concept, this is not clear from the claims as cited, as claim 3 does not require the specific form of the vector potential of claim 1 or the quantum state of claim 5, nor do claims 1 and 5 recite a vehicle as described in claim 3.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “on” should be “one”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
The claimed invention is a vehicle powered by relativistic motion of nanoparticles, comprising a container confining the nanoparticles and an electromagnetic field generator imposing a wave packet on the nanoparticles. Generating an electromagnetic field with a generator attached to a closed system, such as the vehicle having an attached container confining a set of nanoparticles, cannot produce a motion of the center of mass of that system (as it is known from physics that the center of mass of a system, such as the vehicle with attached generator, can only be moved by an outside force). The applicant admits that “the forward momentum gained by the mechanical system will be balanced by a backward momentum gained by the electromagnetic system ([0006])”. The Examiner considers that this backward momentum will exactly cancel any forward momentum applied to the nanoparticles. Therefore the claimed vehicle cannot be moved by the nanoparticles in the claimed manner.
Claims 3-4 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 credible 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.
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 3-4 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 claims contain 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.
Claims 3-4 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 written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites a vehicle powered by the motion of nanoparticles, wherein an electromagnetic field generator imposes a wave packet on the nanoparticles in the form of a vector potential. It is not clear how to arrange an “electromagnetic field generator” to impose the particular vector potential on a system (e.g. any particular arrangement of electrodes or coils, or the voltage or current that must be applied to them, or any particular arrangement of a laser including position, frequency and intensity), as the vector potential is not precisely specified in the claim and in any case it is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art how to generate a particular vector potential by generating specific electromagnetic fields (as the vector potential is not directly measurable and is not unique for a given set of fields but depends on the arbitrary choice of gauge). The specification only describes a generic field generator which may include a laser and/or coil ([0044]), which is not sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art how to construct or operate the generator to produce the claimed result.
It is also not clear in what manner the nanoparticles are arranged or how they impart motion to the vehicle. The specification describes a “bulk configuration of particles contained in a container” [0040], which is not sufficient description to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the structure of this part of the invention (e.g. whether the nanoparticles are in a gaseous form or emitted from a solid). Therefore there is not sufficient description of the structure of the invention in the current disclosure to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention without undue experimentation.
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 3-4 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 3 recites “the one or more hydrogen atoms”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Changing “hydrogen atoms” to “nanoparticles” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 3 recites “an electron velocity”, but it is not clear which electron is meant. Adding “associated with the nanoparticle” after “velocity” would overcome the rejection.
Claim 4 is rejected only for its dependence on claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 22293. 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 E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights