Perpetual Motion Machines in Patent Applications by Nicholas Ponomarenko

Author:Nicholas Ponomarenko [Ponomarenko, Nicholas]
Language: eng
Format: azw3
Published: 2017-03-10T05:00:00+00:00

Example A

Gravity as Input Energy Source

Detailed Action

1.35 USC 101 reads as follows:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, the 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.

2.Claims […] are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a “useful” asserted utility or a “credible” asserted utility.

3.Applicant has asserted specific utility of the claimed invention (see specification, page [xx]) that it is for the production of a mechanical torque by his device on a continuous basis.

4.Examiner carefully studied the invention in view of the above asserted utility by examining the operation of the claimed structure, which has revealed clearly and conclusively that there is a good reason to question the truth of the statement of the asserted utility because the structure of the device, as disclosed and claimed, is inoperative and a person skilled in the art would not consider the asserted utility as credible or that the claimed structure has any specific and substantial utility, since the claimed device operation contradicts the law of conservation of energy. See MPEP [Manual of Patent and Examining Procedure] 07.07.I.B.

5.The claimed invention has no specific and substantial credible utility because, in order to produce a torque for the generation of an electrical power, as asserted by the applicant, the device should have a source of energy for this production. In the instant case, there is no defined source of energy for production of an electrical power, except the force of gravity.

6.There is no system or machine known in the art, which would utilize the force of gravity as a source of energy for production of any other form of energy on a sustained continuous basis. There were numerous examples in the art of the attempts to utilize the force of gravity for energy production. These attempts and devices received the name of “perpetual motion” machines. The instant case is a similar attempt to claim a structure, which can be considered only as a “Perpetual Motion Machine” because the asserted utility of the claimed invention is an attempt to produce energy output only from the force of gravity. A person skilled in the art must consider the utility of this type of structure only as “incredible in view of contemporary knowledge” since it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. In re Gazzve, 379 F.2d 973, 978, 154 USPQ 92, 96 (CCPA 1967).

7.Applicant has not provided any evidence that his claimed structure will perform as he stated in the clearly asserted utility, i.e., will be able to produce a torque on a sustained basis.

8.Evaluation of the disclosure clearly shows that the claimed structure has an “incredible utility” and the burden of proving is now shifted to the applicant to show otherwise.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.