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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not supported by a specific, substantial, and credible utility.
Applicant asserts that the invention is a “self-sustained and non-polluting magnetic electric power generator turbine, without the need for external power” (Spec. ¶[0011]). Such assertions indicate that the claimed device is intended to operate as a perpetual motion machine, i.e., producing more energy than it consumes, without external input.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably doubt the truth of these assertions because they are contrary to the law of conservation of energy, a fundamental scientific principle. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The specification does not provide any working example, prototype, test data, or technical explanation sufficient to demonstrate operability. Conclusory statements that the motor is only used to “start and stabilize” the device (Spec. ¶[0036]) do not constitute credible evidence. See MPEP §2107.01.
Accordingly, the claims lack credible utility, and the burden shifts to Applicant to provide objective evidence sufficient to demonstrate operability. Absent such evidence, the claimed subject matter does not meet the utility requirement of §101.
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.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) because the specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the claims, without undue experimentation.
The claims recite a “vertical propulsion magnetic generator turbine” that is “self-sustained … without the need for external power” (Spec. ¶[0011]). The disclosure does not contain any working example, technical detail, or data showing how such a generator can sustain electrical output without external energy input.
The claimed invention appears to contradict established scientific principles. When an application describes a device that appears to violate the law of conservation of energy, the specification must include sufficient detail to convince one skilled in the art of its operability. See In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The present application does not provide such detail.
A person skilled in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to construct or operate the claimed system. Applying the In re Wands factors, the breadth of the claims, lack of guidance in the specification, and the nature of the invention weigh strongly against enablement. Therefore, the disclosure fails to satisfy the enablement requirement of §112(a).
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.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) because the claims, when read in light of the specification, fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
The following terms are vague, indefinite, or inconsistent, rendering the scope of the claims unclear:
“Vertical propulsion” – It is ambiguous whether this refers to orientation (vertical shaft), direction of thrust (vertical force), or another characteristic.
“Engine locking bracket” – Not described in sufficient detail; unclear whether this is a mount, coupler, or other structure.
“Flange of the system disc upper propulsion system disc” – Internally inconsistent phrase that makes it unclear how many distinct flanges/discs are claimed.
“Self-sustained” – Functional, result-oriented term lacking clear scope; could mean perpetual operation, internal recirculation of energy, or independence from fossil fuels.
“Pure sine wave stabilizer” (if claimed) – Lacks clear structural meaning; could refer to multiple different electronic devices.
Because these terms are indefinite, the scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, as required by §112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
ABDELSLAM (WO2010007385A2) is an application with a similar generator structure that has an axial-flux electric machine with a stator disk sandwiched between two rotor disks with flanges.
JACOB (US20130307366A1) is an application with a similar generator structure where a pair of rotor disks carrying magnets rotates on a shaft with coils.
GRANVILLE (WO2017216567A1) is an application with a similar generator structure with two magnetic annuli and a coil annulus sandwiched between on a common axis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)-272-8310. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tulsidas Patel can be reached on 571-272-2098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect. uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MOHAMMED AHMED QURESHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834