US10144532B2 – Craft using an inertial mass reduction device
Being a patent lawyer, I had to dig a little deeper because there is a record behind every patent.<p>As you some of you already know, the patent office does not freely give patents for impossible devices. No perpetual motion machines, no magic invisibility cloaks, nothing that an ordinary person in the relevant art could not build after reading the patent. This is a doctrine called “enablement”—the patent, plus what is already known in the art, must be enough to enable one to build a working device without undue experimentation. This is the quid pro quo of the patent system: to get ownership of the invention for 20 years, you must tell everyone enough about it to build it themselves.<p>This patent almost suffered the fate of non-enablement at the patent office. What led to its issuance is the interesting part because patent examiner tried and tried to reject this patent as not “enabling” the invention. Yet it issued anyways.<p>I cannot link directly to the patent prosecution documents, but the files are public and you can find them at the USPTO database[0] by searching for the patent&#x27;s application number 15&#x2F;141,270.<p>The patent was filed in April 2016. The first action by the USPTO was in November 2017 with the usual delay and it rejected all claims as not enabling the invention. Simply put the examiner said: “You’re claiming a perpetual motion machine, good-bye.”<p>The patent examiner and the applicant held an interview in January 2018, which is an ordinary event to try to convince the examiner is wrong. The examiner pointed out “that he still felt there were enablement issues.” The applicant disagreed. No agreement was reached.<p>A few days later, the applicant filed his formal response to the rejection. He attached a published article under his authorship in AIAA Space Forum[1]. He also cited other publications on how to “generate extremely high EM flux intensities.” Basically, he&#x27;s saying I&#x27;m peer-reviewed here is some other peer-reviewed articles, and it being peer-reviewed that&#x27;s all you need to know.<p>But most interestingly, he attached a letter from Dr. James Sheehy, Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Systems Air Command, indicating that the amount of magnetic field and electricity described as being required by the patent “can be created, and thus the invention is enabled.” Dr. James Sheehy is a real dude, with that real title and corresponding resume.[2]<p>Dr. Sheehy’s letter is fascinating. It asserts that the applicant is currently one year into a project to demonstrate the feasibility of high EM field-energy and flux and has begun experimenting with associated propulsion systems. Dr. Sheehy says he believes the research shows the invention will be a reality. Then he says (seriously, he says) “China is already investing significantly in this area and I would prefer we hold the patent opposed to paying forever more to use this revolutionary technology.”<p>The examiner at the patent office (who is typically kind of knowledgeable in the field) nevertheless called B.S. Peer-reviewed, shmear-reviewed. He rejected the application again finally in March 2018. He pointed out &quot;for a high energy electromagnetic field to polarize a quantum vacuum as claimed it would take 10^9 teslas and 10^18 V&#x2F;m.&quot; He said &quot;these levels are not feasible with current technology so how would someone of ordinary skill be able to know how to create this craft? The largest magnetic field ever created is 10^3 teslas and a neutron star is 10^ teslas so how are you using a microwave emitter that produces a magnetic field that is three orders of magnitude greater than a neutron star?&quot; And so on... Basically, the examiner said this is bullshit.<p>As is often done in this situation, the applicant filed an appeal from the patent examiner’s rejection. This is usually a procedure that is next addressed by a board of patent judges, with more briefing, typically oral argument, and takes months to years.  But the appeal was never picked up after it was lodged, and it is unclear why. Two months after the appeal was filed, on October 31, 2018, the examiner (for no reason apparent in the file) allowed the patent to issue without comment and on the same day the government paid the fees it owed. The patent was issued in due course.<p>Whether or not the named inventor was a crank, and whether or not the invention was equally frivolous, this was a patent prosecuted by a Navy attorney, vouched for by the Navy CTO, and pushed through under atypical circumstances, in a public forum.<p>What&#x27;s even more intriguing is that, if the Navy wanted, it could obtain the patent under a secrecy order that would keep it from the public&#x27;s eyes until it was declassified.<p>Knowing all this, now ask yourself why this impossible sounding patent issued in a public forum with high-level brass support under tax payer dollars.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;portal.uspto.gov&#x2F;pair&#x2F;PublicPair" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;portal.uspto.gov&#x2F;pair&#x2F;PublicPair</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arc.aiaa.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.2514&#x2F;6.2017-5343" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arc.aiaa.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;10.2514&#x2F;6.2017-5343</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;in&#x2F;james-sheehy-28437a8&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linkedin.com&#x2F;in&#x2F;james-sheehy-28437a8&#x2F;</a>