Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 17/721,472

Spiral Magnetic Engine

Non-Final OA §101§112
Filed
Apr 15, 2022
Examiner
GONZALEZ QUINONES, JOSE A
Art Unit
2834
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
871 granted / 1148 resolved
+7.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1182
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
63.0%
+23.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1148 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 and 112 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. Claims 4-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either an asserted utility or a well-established utility. The device will not operate a magnetic engine comprising concentric arrays of permanent magnets arranged with facing poles configurated to generate repulsive force sufficient to induce continuous rotational of a drive shaft as set forth in the specification (see specification, paragraph [0003, 0008]). In the disclosed application, the repulsion of the rotor magnets in either direction is dependent upon the position of the magnets. If the rotor magnets are not adjacent the windows, no repulsion or rotation will occur. If the magnets happen to be next to the window, then repulsion will occur, but the next consecutive magnet will present an equal repelling force to stop any forward rotation. The magnets will seek an equilibrium position between the stator magnets and remain in that position, as such the device cannot operate as a motor to provide continuous rotation. Also the specification state: the drive shaft can be coupled to an electric generator such as alternator (see specification, paragraph [0011]), the magnets are positioned to “ ensure continuous rotation (see specifications , paragraph [0012, 0015]), No external energy source is disclosed. The claimed operation relies exclusively on static magnetic forces generated by permanents magnets to produce sustained rotational motion an usable mechanical output. It is well established that permanents magnet alone cannot provide continuous net energy output in a closed system with out external energy input. Such operation is inconsistent and would violate the law of conservation of energy because you cannot create mechanical energy from little to no input energy and accepted electromagnetic principles. Devices that support to generate continuous mechanical energy solely from static magnetic interaction lack credible utility (See Ꞩ MPEP 2107.01). Because the claimed invention appears to require operation contrary to established physical laws, the asserted utility is not considered specific and credible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. Claim 4 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either an 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. As set forth in the rejection under 35 USC 101 above, the claims are directed to a perpetual motion device. Since such devices violate the known laws of thermodynamics and are inoperative, one of ordinary skill would not be able to make and use the invention as claimed. Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The specification fails to teach how the claimed magnetic configurations overcomes magnetic equilibrium and energy conservation constraints to produce sustained rotation. The disclosure does not provide: Experimental data demonstrating continuous operation, a mathematical model explaining net torque generation, an identified energy input mechanism and experimental data demonstrating sustained rotation under load. Absent such teaching, one ordinary skill in the art would not able to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is not satisfied where the specification does not enable operability of the invention as claimed. 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation " to optimize the magnetic flux and resulting torque … " in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “to optimize the magnetic flux and resulting torque” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ to optimize the magnetic flux and resulting torque” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:30-2:30 EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, OLUSEYE IWARERE can be reached on (571)270-5112. The fax phone number for the organization where 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. /JOSE A GONZALEZ QUINONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834 March 2, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 15, 2022
Application Filed
Mar 08, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112
Sep 09, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 09, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 08, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 23, 2024
Final Rejection — §101, §112
Jul 26, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592595
ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH AXIAL AND RADIAL PERMANENT MAGNETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592601
MOTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587068
ELECTRIC MOTOR COOLING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583593
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OIL MAINTENANCE IN GEARBOXES FOR eVTOL AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580434
ROTOR FOR ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING ROTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1148 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month