DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/08/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of Office Action dated 07/08/2025 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections, the applicant states:
A Proposal for Mechanically Using Gravity to Generate Electricity section (refer to pages 4-7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. No stand-alone machine generates electricity indefinitely using gravity as the motive force without any external mechanical force. The applicant describes a perpetual motion machine that violates fundamental laws of physics.
Return of Investment section (refer to pages 7-8).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. A “power efficient machine” does not enable a self-sustained stand-alone gravity machine. No fixed “internal loss” stays constant due to entropy accelerating degradation and ensuring shutdown or stopping. Gravity yields zero net-work and no surplus exist.
The Gravitas Machine (refer to pages 8-10).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. No stand-alone can produce power indefinitely. To make the applicant’s magnet “transfer” from the linear generator tower dropped by gravity to then be raised by the water tower involves a piston – refer to applicant’s para [0009], “a piston that is positioned in a conduit between the two water chambers of the transfer tank … an electrical connection is used to feedback electricity from the machine's output to run the mechanical component”. Moreover, to lift the magnet, water must be displaced and rearranged where work is done against the water pressure and drag since the applicant’s system is a stand-alone system (closed system), no system can run on power created by the same system. Therefore, the applicant’s Gravitas Machine is a perpetual motion machine.
Power Consideration (refer to pages 10-11).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. As stated by the applicant, in last paragraph on page 10 and first paragraph on page 11 –
“in reality, however, a substantial portion of the input work U, is also provided by a piston mechanism that is submerged in the transfer tank” still requires power;
“the piston is reciprocated by a mechanism to maintain a balanced relationship between an upper water level in the water tower and a lower water level in the transfer tank” also requires power;
“in a power comparison, the shuttle will have a higher power value during the output duty cycle while it falls by gravity through air with a high velocity, than it will as it rises during the input duty cycle by buoyancy in the water tower with a relatively low velocity” no system produces higher power than used;
“the shuttle requires no external input, per se, to rise in the water tower, the water tower remains a consideration”;
Therefore, the applicant’s “power consideration” requires power and has no external power input and the laws of thermos dynamics clearly states that no system can produce higher power than taken in any system, including the applicant’s system operating with buoyancy and gravity.
Output/Input Work Requirement (refer to pages 11-14).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. No stand-alone can produce power indefinitely. The Gravitas machine claiming total output work greater than the total input work and the required to run the machines operation is the definition of a perpetual motion machine.
Input Assist Requirement and remaining arguments (refer to pages 14-22).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The magnet will not return to then be elevated point with the buoyancy alone. It requires the piston operating and consuming power. The applicant’s Gravitas machine is a stand-alone machine (no outside power and powering itself), keep operating in power created by the machine, and creates a surplus of power – this violates the first and second law of thermodynamics.
The first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed – you can’t get more work/energy out compared to the total work/energy you put in. A machine than seems to do that would be the well-known perpetual motion machine. The second law of thermodynamics adds that even if you could somehow recover all the energy (no power losses), you still couldn’t convert it into useful work 100% efficient in a cyclic process, so certain “high-efficiency-only” machines are also ruled out as perpetual motion machines.
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 10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The claimed invention is inoperative and lacks credible utility because it contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. There are numerous examples in the art of the attempts to produce more output energy than input energy. These attempts receive the name of “perpetual motion machines”. The claimed invention is a similar attempt to claim a device, which can be considered only as a “perpetual motion machine”, because the asserted utility of the claimed invention is an attempt to produce energy more than it uses.
The standard for determining whether the specification meets the enablement requirement requires that the claimed invention be enabled so that any person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
The breadth of the claims:
The claims are directed to a closed loop system which uses the forces of buoyancy and gravity. The system generates power using these two forces and outputs more power than its input, without an external source, as a continuous system. Such a machine would be in contradiction with the first law of thermodynamics and therefore cannot operate as claimed.
The nature of the invention:
The subject matter of the claims along with the specifications attempts to define what is known as a perpetual motion machine. This assessment is made on account of the following passages of text from the present application:
“Unlike other machines, the only motive forces required for an operation of the present invention are provided by the earth's gravitational field. Specifically, the machine of the present invention uses the force of gravity to generate its electricity output. The machine then uses the force of buoyancy to reset the machine for its next machine duty cycle. Thus, in its closed loop operation, a machine of the present invention is nonpolluting, self-sustaining, and economically viable.” (¶ [0004]).
“Namely, these components are a hydro-electric component that generates the machine's electricity output, and a hydromechanical component that uses a portion of the feedback from the machine's electricity output to run the hydro-electric component of the machine. In this combination, the machine must be designed and configured to provide an electricity output that is greater than the feedback from the output needed to run the machine.” (¶ [0005]).
“In the context of the present invention, the engagement velocity, Ve, of the shuttle with the linear is held constant. Nevertheless, the force of gravity continues acting to accelerate the shuttle. The linear generator, however, restrains acceleration of an engaged shuttle, and the work to do this is harvested from the linear generator as the machine's output (¶ [0036]).
In these passages, the applicant’s machine is a self-sustained/closed system operated by gravity and buoyancy as the motive force to generate electricity (refer to A above). Moreover, a hydromechanical component uses a portion of the feedback machine's electricity output and keeps the system constant to run the hydro-electric component, providing an electricity output that is greater than the feedback from the output needed to run the machine and a portion of the machine’s output is harvested (refer to B-C above).
The level of one of ordinary skill:
The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; energy can only be transferred or changed from one form to another. A way of expressing the first law of thermodynamics is that any change in the internal energy (∆E) of a system is given by the sum of the heat (q) that flows across its boundaries and the work (w) done on the system by the surroundings. This law says that there are two kinds of processes, heat and work, that can lead to a change in the internal energy of a system. Since both heat and work can be measured and quantified, this is the same as saying that any change in the energy of a system must result in a corresponding change in the energy of the surroundings outside the system. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If heat flows into a system or the surroundings do work on it, the internal energy increases and the sign of (q) and (w) are positive. Conversely, heat flow out of the system or work done by the system (on the surroundings) will be at the expense of the internal energy, and (q) and (w) will therefore be negative.
The level of predictability in the art and the amount of direction provided by the inventor:
From a general point of view, it can be shown that it is not possible for an initial energy to create surplus energy due to the first law of thermodynamics.
A closed loop is created as shown in FIG. 2 & 6. A shuttle is dropped from a height and brough up to the same height using a piston reciprocating back and forth. Thus, if the shuttle in a gravity field goes down from height h2 to height h1 and then goes back up to position h2, the net amount of work done by the shuttle is zero (the positive work done by the gravity field on the object on the way down equals the work done on the field by the object on the way up). As such, if the shuttle circulates in a closed loop like in the apparatus disclosed in the disclosure, then it can be demonstrated that the amount of energy that can be extracted from the failing shuttle is equal to the energy needed to send the shuttle back up to height h2.
Considering at first that the generator(s) and the reciprocating displacement device (piston) have an efficiency of 100%, it can be seen that all of the power extracted by the generator(s) is needed by the reciprocating displacement device to send the shuttle back up. But given that the generator(s) and the reciprocating displacement device have efficiency below 100% and the other losses (friction, efficiency of the electric generator) in the system, constantly re-circulating the shuttle in the apparatus described in the claims requires a net input of power. Therefore, the claimed apparatus is not capable of producing net power.
The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
Therefore, the alleged result of the present invention cannot be achieved through experimentation as contradicting the first law of thermodynamics (i.e. perpetual motion machines) is universally recognized by the scientific community, and constitutes a sufficient proof of the unworkability of the apparatus disclosed in the present application.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557,1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 10 and 12-16 are 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 a credible 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469)295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, TULSIDAS C. PATEL can be reached at (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 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.
/JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834