DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filled on 06/28/2024 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 10/06/2025. These drawings are new matter, particularly figures 3-4. For example:
a. the arrangement of “projectile 600”, “electric power source 700”, “the device for returning 800”, “heat dissipation device 900”, “the braking device 1000” and the “tilting device 1100” with respect to longitudinal tube 100 in FIG. 3;
b. the arrangement of longitudinal tubes 100 with respect to “spacecraft 1200” as well as the particulars (unlabeled) of the spacecraft 1200 in FIG. 4.
These are instances of new matter found in the drawings filed on 10/06/2025.
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “launcher”, the “brake”, the “returner”, the “heat dissipation device” and the “power source” in claim 1, the “tilting device” in claim 8, the “plurality of pairs of parallel longitudinal tubes” claim 9, the “Spacecraft” in claim 10, the “brake” in claims 11-12 and the “returner” in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
5. The amendment filed on 10/06/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
a. The specification should be amended to remove the reference numerals corresponding to new matter added to the drawings as discussed above. Such reference numerals include 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100 and 1200.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The present invention is drawn to a propulsion system that purportedly creates thrust by launching a projectile within a tube, a propeller transforming a translational movement of the projectile into a rotational movement, a portion of the rotational movement being transformed into heat, and the heat being evacuated by means of a heat dissipation device. However, despite heat being expelled from the tube, the forces generated via the expelled heat cancel each other out and the tube and spacecraft maintain a constant velocity (i.e., zero velocity). Newton’s laws of motion require the conversation of momentum in a closed system, and Newton’s third law, specifically, requires that every action has an equal but opposite reaction. Accordingly, any force created within the closed system that would provide propulsion (i.e. thrust) would be nullified by an equal but opposite force against propelling the system. As the masses move, they create an imbalance in the system. This imbalance merely causes a shift in the rest of the body in the opposite direction absent any force to stabilize or push back against the body, such as in space. Although the masses move, the center of gravity of the falling vehicle/system as a whole does not change paths. No propulsion is provided, but rather a simple oscillation.
The launching of a projectile, and converting translation movement into rotational movement (as depicted in FIG. 1 and supported by para. [0014]) is effectively a reaction wheel commonly used to control the attitude of the vehicle. These do not provide propulsion to the vehicle, but rather orient the vehicle due to the opposing reactions acting therein (as the propeller turns, the vehicle turns accordingly). Irrespective of the disclosure of a system with a conservation of momentum (i.e., non-movable) but with a zero-angular moment, the system is in fact a closed system. As stated above, any force created within the closed system would be nullified by an equal but opposite force against propelling the system. The movement of the fluid in the tube, merely causes a shift in the rest of the body in the opposite direction absent of any force to stabilize or push back against the body.
Reaction wheels are not considered to be propulsive device, and do not create any propulsion. It is understood that the rotating system of the disclosure, acting in a similar manner, would likewise not create any propulsion. Further evidence of this phenomenon can be seen in non-patent document from NASA “Responding to Mechanically Antigravity” (previously provided).
Additionally, while the emission of heat of the body purportedly provides for a non-isolated system (see paras. [0015], [0088] and [00100]), where photons can be expelled from the body with momentum, however, there is no effective net thrust. Newton’s first law, specifically, requires an objection at rest remains at rest, while an object in motion remains in motion with the same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force (see non-patent document from NASA, Aircraft Motion - Newton’s First Law, previously provided). However, heat radiates omnidirectionally (i.e., 360 degrees) from the body, effectively rendering the net thrust to be zero as all the forces cancel each other out. Absent of any unbalanced forces, the thrust provided by the tube is effectively zero, and therefore no thrust is provided to the spacecraft of the applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, while the dissipation of heat from the tube may provide for a non-isolated system, absent of any unbalanced forces acting on the tube, and absent of any particular disclosure regarding the specific direction in which heat is being expelled from the tube, the propulsion system as claimed and disclosed provides no thrust.
While concepts of photon rockets have been discussed in a theoretical setting, all of such concepts entail utilizing nuclear photon rockets or rockets having a nuclear energy source. See non-patent document from ToughSF “Nuclear Photon Rockets: Flashlights to the Stars” (previously provided) which concludes that such concepts are merely speculative in nature. Therefore, due to the lack of substantial evidence, the concept of space travel via photon propulsion is generally considered an idea that has yet to be proven.
As the operability of the device has been called into question, the applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the examiner that the device is indeed operable. As outlined in 37 CFR 1.91 (b), the applicant is required to furnish a working model or other physical exhibit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
10. As outlined above with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, the claimed invention is not supported by a 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.
11. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 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 claim(s) 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
12. Claim 1 indicates “A propulsion system” corresponding to at least paras. [0007] and [0033]-[0038] of the specification fails provide adequate written support because the specification is not sufficiently specific other than re-iteration of the claimed subject matter, and the propulsion system appears to be merely a system for emitting heat, but nothing more. The term “propulsion system” is understood to be a mechanism that provides or capable of providing thrust, however, as there is no thrust provided by the disclosed propulsion system, the claimed “propulsion system” is so board as to be meaningless since no propulsion is provided. As such, the examiner asserts that due to the lack of sufficient written description, a skilled artisan would not be informed on how to implement the invention as claimed and disclosed in a meaningful way. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the claimed language in view of the specification is not satisfactory to amount to anything more than a general possession of a concept, not disclosed with sufficient detail. The examiner invites applicant to particularly point out an example regarding how the system is capable of producing thrust such that the system is in fact a propulsion system as it relates to the claimed invention. A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)).
13. Claim 10 indicates “A spacecraft comprising a propulsion system according to claim 1” corresponding to at least paras. [0035], [0063], [0090], [0098]-[0099], [00118], [00124] and [00127] of the specification fails provide adequate written support because the specification is not sufficiently specific other than re-iteration of the claimed subject matter, and the propulsion system appears to be merely a system for emitting heat, but nothing more. The term “propulsion system” is understood to be a mechanism that provides or capable of providing thrust, however, as there is no thrust provided by the disclosed propulsion system to the spacecraft, the claimed “propulsion system” is so board as to be meaningless since no propulsion is provided to the spacecraft. As such, the examiner asserts that due to the lack of sufficient written description, a skilled artisan would not be informed on how to implement the invention as claimed and disclosed in a meaningful way. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the claimed language in view of the specification is not satisfactory to amount to anything more than a general possession of a concept, not disclosed with sufficient detail. The examiner invites applicant to particularly point out an example regarding how the system is capable of producing thrust such that the system is in fact a propulsion system as it relates to the claimed invention. A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)).
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-6 and 8-13 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.
16. Claim 1, lines 1-22, recites the limitation “A propulsion system comprising a motor” and further comprising at least “a projectile”, “a launcher”, “a brake”, “a returner” and “a heat dissipation device” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to whether the system is propulsion system or merely a system containing subject matter that are not capable of producing thrust. Per the applicant’s disclosure, the prorupted thrust generated is a function of the momentum of heat emitted from the tube(s). However, per the fundamental laws of physics, the radiated heat merely cancels each other and renders a system having a net zero thrust. Is the emitted heat expelled from a single direction or any other direction that is not omnidirectional? Are there other forces acting upon the tubes or mass expelled from the tubes that allow for thrust to be generated to thereby propel the spacecraft? It is not conceivable that a mere emission of photons with momentum alone is sufficient for generating thrust in light of the applicant’s disclosure. Further clarification is required. Similarly, claim 10 which requires the propulsion system of claim 1 is unclear for the same reasons.
17. Claim limitation “tilter configured to independently pivot” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s lengthy arguments are generally scientific and analytical in nature. In particular, the arguments appear to be generally in relation to the principal laws of physics and do not appear to specifically address the concerns raised via the examiner through means of the 101 and 112 rejections.
With regard to arguments pertaining to what appears to be the 35 USC § 101 rejection, the applicant asserts that “the Examiner, recognizing the ‘reaction wheel’ character of the claimed device, is not coherent in his criticism, since he denies us an effect in the translational field that is based on the same physics, and, more or less, the same theorem as for rotations” and “if we can rotate, with a clever process, one can translate. This is the goal of the applicant’s claimed invention” as noted on pp. 9-10 of the remarks. These are arguments are not considered to be persuasive for the following reason:
As clearly set forth by the examiner in the Office action mailed on 04/082025, the applicant’s claimed propulsion system is merely a reactionless drive, that is effectively a reaction wheel. Given the closed and isolated nature of the invention, the movement of the fluid in the tube merely causes a shift in the rest of the body in the opposite direction absent of any force to stabilize or push back against the body. Reactionless drives do not create any propulsion.
Assuming, arguendo, that the heat being released to the outside makes the system non- isolated such that propulsion may be generated, Newton’s first law, specifically, requires an objection at rest remains at rest, while an object in motion remains in motion with the same speed in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force (see non-patent document from NASA, Aircraft Motion - Newton’s First Law, previously provided). However, heat radiates omnidirectionally (i.e., 360 degrees) from the body, effectively rendering the net thrust to be zero as all the forces cancel each other out. Absent of any unbalanced forces, the thrust provided by the tube is effectively zero, and therefore no thrust is provided to the spacecraft of the applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, while the dissipation of heat from the tube may provide for a non-isolated system, absent of any unbalanced forces acting on the tube, and absent of any particular disclosure regarding the specific direction in which heat is being expelled from the tube, the propulsion system as claimed and disclosed provides no thrust.
Furthermore, in the provided experiment “that is an official one carried out in the International Space Station” there is in fact no indication of the astronaut translating in space, and further there is no indication. On the contrary, what is demonstrated is further proof of the fundamental laws of physics. Further stated, without any external forces or expelling mass, the center of mass of a system (i.e., astronaut) cannot change its motion. Simply moving limbs and making rotational/spinning movements does not change the center of mass of the astronaut’s body relative to an outside of observer or surrounding. Therefore, similar to the claimed invention, no net translation occurs, and no propulsion is generated.
No arguments pertaining to the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) have been made.
In the interest of expedited prosecution, the examiner kindly invites the applicant to address the specific concerns raised by the examiner in view of the applicant’s disclosure. While general discussions related to laws of physics are greatly appreciated, however, the examiner requests future remarks to be directed to the scope of the claimed invention, the Applicant’s disclosure of the claimed invention and more importantly the concerns raised by the examiner.
Lastly, as the operability of the device has been called into question, the applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the examiner that the device is indeed operable. As outlined in 37 CFR 1.91 (b), the applicant is required to furnish a working model or other physical exhibit.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642