Home Government Editorial | Why did the US Navy patent UFO-type technology?

Editorial | Why did the US Navy patent UFO-type technology?

UFO over water. | Image: Pixabay

The US Navy has filed for several patent applications with technology sounding like it was ripped from the headlines of the Roswell Daily Record on July 8, 1947. The prosecution dates go back as far as 2015, but they’ve been brought to light now in the wake of the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group’s UFO/UAP sightings disclosed by Navy pilots via To The Stars Academy and highlighted in The History Channel’s latest show, Unidentified.

The Navy patents and applications of interest have the following titles:

While forward-looking tech is patented on a regular basis, one of the Navy patents in question involved a defense of the claims by Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise, Dr. James Sheehy, who cited China’s advances as justification for its patentability. It’s the one titled “Craft using an inertial mass reduction device” that received special attention.

Brett Tingley and Tyler Rogoway over at The War Zone (TWZ) subsection of The Drive did a great job digging these patents up, hashing out their details, and providing context with commentary by subject matter experts. Bravo! However, there were a few things I wanted to expand on to continue framing the issue of what’s going on with the technology claims.

My biggest question was, why in the world did the Navy patent UFO technology? The TWZ article touched on a bit:

It’s important to note, as well, that U.S. patent law ends at America’s borders. The Navy can patent anything it wants to, but those patents would not necessarily keep a foreign country from developing and patenting similar technologies.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk also explained this weirdness very well when asked whether he would patent his company’s rocket tech in an old interview with Wired:

We have essentially no patents in SpaceX…Our primary long-term competition is in China-if we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.

One explanation, also in the TWZ piece, was that the Navy was putting China on notice that it knew about its UFO-type developments. I personally think that’s an odd way to signal to an adversary considering the numerous, much less scientifically-invested ways to go about such a task. Our president is Donald Trump…you can extrapolate what I mean by that.

This theory also assumes the next-level of fantastic possibilities – that China has this physics-agnostic capability already and is regularly harassing Americans by impersonating alien invaders using it. That, or they’re close to it. Also, it’s worth noting that Chinese scientists weren’t able to keep a plant seedling alive on the Moon in recent months, casting more doubt on their having gravity-busting supercrafts, but that’s just me being antagonistic.

I would assume that our country generally doesn’t publish its classified secrets any moreso than China would, and any sensitive patents that are needed to protect the US government’s rights to their inventions would be kept secret. As cited in the TWR article as well, the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 provides for this protection. Curiously, the Navy did not decide to invoke this law, choosing instead to let everyone find these impossible invention filings and speculate for ourselves.

My next question is then, where did the Navy come up with these ideas? I had a look at the prosecution process for all of these applications, and the opinion of the Examiner in most cases was the same: This tech cannot exist. Here are some of their comments from some of the applications:

Craft using an inertial mass reduction device

Using the Examiner comments from this patent, trying to claim invention rights to a full-fledged UFO is tough:

  • The Examiner holds that these [high energy electromagnetic field levels required] are not feasible with the current technology… how are you using a microwave emitter that produces a magnetic field that is three orders of magnitude greater than a neutron star? …how are you claiming a craft that produces electricity that is fourteen orders of magnitude greater than a fusion reactor?

In the TWZ article, it’s stated that “No reason was given for why the patent was eventually approved.” This is not exactly correct – the Notice of Allowance refers back to the Appeal Brief filed during prosecution where the Examiner’s rejections were debated and published literature on relevant topics was cited as to why a patent was issued.

Even so, granting the patent certainly seems like a bureaucratic move. An Appeal goes above the Examiner in question, so a higher-up probably vetoed the Examiner’s objections, especially since the Examiner didn’t buy Dr. Sheehy’s reasoning for patentability:

  • The declaration by Dr. James Sheehy…is insufficient to overcome the rejection…because… With respect to the first argument that lasers have evolved and become more powerful th[a]n what was originally present, this has no relevance to the current claim set. Just because a thought like a laser turned out to be correct and workable does not mean that every math based theory will turn out to be accurate and buildable. The Applicant has still not provided enablement as to how magnetic and electric fields that are not remotely even close to be[ing] produce[d] will create an inertial mass reduction.
  • With respect to [the] third argument that China is already investing significantly in this area, this has nothing to do with what is patentable. If anyone else filed this Application they would receive the same rejection.

Electromagnetic field generator and method to generate an electromagnetic field

This invention was actually posited to be about asteroid deflection, not a spaceship force field or anything along those lines, despite the title. Notably, even though the application was being filed on behalf of the US Navy and via an experienced patent attorney, the invention seems to lack, well, an invention.

  • The claims merely list a collection of parts and goals hoped to be achieved by each of the listed parts… Applicant claims a piezoelectric shell and method indicating that it induces high frequency vibrations. Piezoelectric materials respond to mechanical forces and have frequency responses, however there is no indication of how that is achieved in the [invention] language… No means to induce the vibrations is claimed, no structural features are claimed, no dimensions are noted… No structure for the generator is cited… No structure at all is provided such that this can possibly be achieved.
  • Subsequent claims merely indicate the shape of the shell, note that the cited parts are within it, without indicating how any part is connected to it or to other parts, note embedded radioactive elements emit gamma rays without providing any guidance as to specific radioactive elements or how they are structured in the shell.

After initial Examiner rejections, a telephone conference was conducted to discuss the addition of the inventor’s prior scientific publications in order to fill in the gaps in technology explanation in the application. The Examiner agreed to accept the changes, but “noted that the invention was a formative invention in its incipient stage(s)”, per the summary of the call.

Piezoelectricity-induced room temperature superconductor

This application is still pending and just received an Advisory Action indicating that the Examiner is still rejecting the claims of the invention. The rejections are similar to the other applications:

  • …the state of the prior art does not include room temperature superconductivity; room temperature superconductivity exists as no more than a theoretical possibility. The superconductor art has a high level of unpredictability. The amount of direction provided by the inventor does not provide sufficient written description to convey that applicant was in possession of such material, nor does it sufficiently provide details to enable one skilled in the art to make or use the material as claimed. As stated in the rejection: there are no examples in which a room temperature product was experimentally produced and tested in the instant specification.
  • Indeed, there is no agreement in the scientific community that room temperature superconductivity even exists… Where the utility of the claimed invention is based upon allegations that border on the incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community, sufficient substantiating evidence of operability needs to be submitted by appellant.

This Examiner doesn’t appear to accept the arguments used in the other applications where published scientific literature supplemented what was missing from the invention details:

  • Applicant argues that enablement of applicant’s invention, as well as operability of the invention, can be found in an Applicant written, peer reviewed paper published and presented at the AIAA SciTech Forum. Applicant argues that peer reviewed work is sent to other scientists for criticism and judgment, only work judged as worthwhile will be published. However, it is unclear what standard AIAA employs when accepting a paper/presentation (i.e. does the authority in charge of AIAA run experiments to confirm results of presenters, etc.). While the Office appreciates that applicant presented at the AIAA conference, it appears that applicant states that room temperature superconductors /may/ be possible in works submitted thereto.
  • Additionally, the Office is aware that in such instances where the utility of the claimed invention is based upon allegations that border on the incredible or allegations that would not be readily accepted by a substantial portion of the scientific community, sufficient substantiating evidence of operability needs to be submitted by appellant. For example, in 2011 scientists conducting the OPERA experiment claimed that neutrinos moved faster than the speed of light, only to have the results recanted due to faulty equipment discovered through third party attempts at replication.

So, just to recap and reiterate the question, if patent examiners understand that not only does this tech not exist, it is not currently possible for it to exist – where did the Navy get it from? Perhaps the inventor just reviewed the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group’s UFO videos and made educated guesses about how it worked using the state of theoretical science and engineering.

Or perhaps the inventor was briefed by someone “in the know” on how they work so the Navy could publish these applications and mislead the public about their origin. Disinformation certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

See again: Roswell, New Mexico.