The initial opinion of the ISA on my method

Dear readers, from the International Patent Office (in particular ISA) came out with the statement that my method is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics - "However, according to the second law of thermodynamics perpetual motion machine of the second kind is impossible, namely it is impossible to apply a heat engine whose only result of the action is the conversion of the heat of any substance in the work without the transfer of the heat to other substances.
Accordingly, the devices for converting the thermal energy into mechanical energy and methods for conversion of thermal energy into mechanical energy according to claims 1-6, 8, 9, 10 contrary to the second law of thermodynamics."
Will naturally object as follows:
I want to draw attention of the committee that my unit is heat insulated, and as its elements are insulated. So all evaporators (3) of the thermodynamic point of view appear different and independent of each other bodies, different and independent of each other thermodynamic systems .In the description I have examined the method with pre-established temperature difference between the evaporators - the first (3a) have a ambient temperature, and in any subsequent decrease in the temperature close to the boiling point of the working substance. So in this method and device have the transfer of heat from one body to another. The gases coming out of the transducers of thermal energy into mechanical energy heat exchange with the evaporators back in the chain - transfer heat to other substances (the substance is the same working substance , but with a lower temperature, which in thermodynamic aspect we can consider them - other substance). Also working substance of the system for redistributing heat contact with evaporators (with various bodies from a thermodynamic point of view) through heat exchangers so that I have "heat transfer to other substances" - as they expressed by the Commission. Substance - working substance of the unit in each insulated evaporator is "other" from the thermodynamic point of view because there are different temperatures.
When I want to use environmental heat energy required to drive the device I said that must be cool first cold part to a temperature near the boiling point of the working substance. In the description examines the processes set in already operating temperature - the temperature decreases in each evaporator from temperature of the environment in the first (3a) to the boiling point of the working substance in the last (3x). I previously created a "different bodyes" from a thermodynamic point of view, so that we can transfer heat to the "other body". This will allow me to convert heat into mechanical energy. Thus most - correct and important to me formulation of the second law of thermodynamics made by Carnot: " The heat can be converted to work only when there is a temperature difference. Of the total heat is utilized only part of it and this part depends on the temperature difference " is "taken into account ".
To emphasize once again:
1 The gaseous working substance heat exchange through heat exchangers(5; 18) with different from thermodynamic perspective bodies - evaporators
2 The working substance of the system for redistributing heat is in contact with various bodies -  evaporators and heat exchangers transfer heat from one body to another through heat exchangers(16)
3 Cold part I create - using an external force (starter 24) cooling the cold part to a temperature near the boiling point of the working substance. This will have available "different bodyes" - each insulated evaporator, with which gaseous working substance of the unit to heat exchange.

Let readers who examined my method to share the opinion - Is it right an opinion of the ISA or it is not correct. I take the liberty to paraphrase: "will be, or will not be" IoI