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 09/25/2025, with respect to the Drawing Objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objections of Office Action dated 09/25/2025 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 & 112(a) Rejection –
On page 11, first paragraph, the applicant states, in reference to Page 3, lines 22 through 27, the original specification recites "Further, the at least one automatic voltage regulator may be configured for powering the at least one drive system after the starting phase based on the electrical energy receivable by the at least one automatic voltage regulator from the at least one permanent magnet generator. Further, the driving of the at least one permanent magnet generator after the starting phase may be based on the powering of the at least one drive system after the starting phase" in the original specification. (Emphasis added).
On page 11, third paragraph, the applicant submits that the above text in the specification is to be read with the current invention as claimed in independent claim 1 of the instant Application reciting "at least one power source configured for powering the at least one drive system during the starting phase" and "at least one automatic voltage regulator (AVR)" that is "configured for powering the at least one drive system after the starting phase based on the electrical energy receivable by the at least one automatic voltage regulator from the at least one permanent magnet generator (PMG)." (Emphasis added).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. A voltage regulator is not a power source in the sense of harnessing an outside energy source, such as the sun, moving water, wind, or fossil fuels, to create mechanical energy. A voltage regulator maintains a constant output voltage despite changes in input voltage or load conditions. In the instant case, the voltage regulator provides the starting phase power for the drive system from the permanent magnet generator – meaning the mentioned elements are part of the same system, making the applicant’s system a closed system which is a description of a perpetual motion machine. The applicant’s voltage regulator receiving power from the permanent magnet in the described closed system would operate after the starting phase, but eventually not continue operating as described.
On page 11, third paragraph, the applicant further submits given the context for a person of skill in the art (POSITA) reading the specification and the claimed inventions of the pending claims as a whole, the prepositions "may" and the phrase "based on" are permissive, they do not require the AVR to be the sole or exclusive source of energy after startup, nor do they require that the PMG produce net energy in excess of inevitable losses for all time. In other words, the claim language permits embodiments where (a) the PMG supplies a substantial portion of operating power after startup, (b) the external power source remains present but in an idle/standby state, or (c) external power supplements the PMG as needed. The pending independent claims of the instant Application thus recite a power source during startup and an AVR that powers the drive system "based on" electrical energy from the PMG. They do not recite perpetual, closed-loop energy generation. They allow embodiments where supplemental power sources remain in standby or provide support as needed, and thus, the scope is not limited to a self-sustaining perpetual-motion device.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. “(a) the PMG supplies a substantial portion of operating power after startup as stated by the applicant” as stated by the applicant’s closed system is impossible because it violates both the first and second laws of thermodynamics, which apply to all physical systems such device is known as a perpetual motion machine. “(b) the external power source remains present but in an idle/standby state” in the applicant’s PMG is powered by itself (as stated by the applicant – a power source during startup and an AVR that powers the drive system "based on" electrical energy from the PMG), EVEN in an idle or standby state without an external energy supply would still violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
On page 12, last paragraph, the applicant replaces the recitation by adding a recitation to clarify this, and the amended text in Page 13, line 34 to Page 14, lines 1 through 16, now recites "Further, the NewtonGen dual PMG may not require any AC coupled or battery bank on or off-grid which saves money and improves safety. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may operate on-demand 24/7 365 days regardless of the environment. The on-demand renewable energy generator operates on demand 24/7 365 days with the support of the integrated battery, inverter, and AVR. which may enter a standby or idle mode when not actively supplying current, thereby minimizing external draw while maintaining continuous operation. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may not require fuels, nuclear, sun, wind, or water to operate and may produce electricity at an efficiency greater than 85%. The on-demand renewable energy generator generates electricity on demand, using the disclosed drive. magnet. and power-management architecture. and therefore function continuously when supplied with initial startup energy and managed through the integrated battery, inverter, and AVR subsystems. The on-demand renewable energy generator produces electricity at system-level efficiencies greater than 85% under favorable operational parameters. with the disclosed architecture reducing external input draw after startup. The disclosure does not claim any device that violates conservation of energy. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator has the highest efficiency in renewable electricity and or public utilities on the earth today." (Added part is underlined, emphasis added).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant’s “clarification” still describes a closed system – consequently the description of a perpetual motion machine. “The support of the integrated battery, inverter, and AVR” as “clarified” by the applicant is part of the same CLOSED system as stated by the applicant “the on-demand renewable energy generator may not require fuels, nuclear, sun, wind, or water to operate and may produce electricity at an efficiency greater than 85%.”. Moreover, to determine a required output power, you must also know the input power. The applicant’s input power as stated by the applicant is “The on-demand renewable energy generator operates on demand 24/7 365 days with the support of the integrated battery, inverter, and AVR”. Any output power “efficiency greater than 85%” is calculated by the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
483
949
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the mentioned example of 5 watts as an input power at 85 % efficiency is 4.25W. 4.25 W output from a 5 W input is a power net loss. Moreover, the applicant’s input is from a battery which is a finite power source because their chemical and physical components are limited, non-renewable materials that cannot be replenished naturally, making the battery a limited resource, unlike truly and NOT NEEDED in the applicant’s system such as renewable sources of energy like sunlight or wind, which are constantly available. Therefore, the applicant’s system is inoperable after the battery power is consumed, contrary to the applicant’s system non-stop.
On page 13 last paragraph, page 14 first paragraph, the applicant submits that the above-cited passage in page 14 (i.e., discussed
above) of the amended specification merely describes the known advantages of radial flux permanent magnet synchronous generators and there is no perpetual motion assertion. These are widely used in industry (e.g., wind turbines, EV motors) and are well-established to: eliminate rotor excitation losses, operate with higher part-load efficiency than asynchronous generators, achieve typical electrical efficiencies in the 85-95% range, and require reduced maintenance due to brushless construction. These properties are recognized in textbooks, research articles, and datasheets; the disclosure is thus credible and consistent with the art. Here, a POSITA would immediately recognize the claimed PMG characteristics as conventional and operable, and there is no teaching of perpetual motion or violation of physical laws in this passage.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The examiner agrees that a radial flux rare earth permanent magnet generator (PMG) could function synchronously and continuously generating power. However, without an external energy source would be a perpetual motion machine and would violate the laws of thermodynamics. While a permanent magnet generator doesn't need an external power source for its magnetic field, it still requires an input of mechanical energy to produce electrical energy.
On page 19 first paragraph, the applicant further submits that the novelty of the current invention of the instant Application is not in eliminating losses but in: a rotation → oscillation → rotation system, a push-pull drive mechanism that allows torque preservation while increasing output shaft speed and increasing rotational speed ( e.g., 50 rpm input to 200 rpm output without torque loss). Also, it is in the integration of external power-management subsystems (battery/inverter/AYR) to sustain and regulate operation despite conversion losses. Therefore, Applicant submits that it is entirely consistent with the laws of thermodynamics: energy is introduced, converted, and managed with recognized losses, not created from nothing.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant’s “external power-management subsystems (battery/inverter/AYR)” is part of the same close system. Therefore, a push-pull drive mechanism would not allow torque preservation while increasing output shaft speed and increasing rotational speed and would eventually stop once power from the battery power runs out.
On page 20 first paragraph, the applicant disagrees and respectfully submits that (a) External power is disclosed since, the battery/inverter subsystem provides initial startup energy, and the A VR manages ongoing power flow. The specification and drawings (FIGS. 21 through 24 and 27) of the instant Application detail these subsystems. (b) The pending claims of the instant Application do not require operation without external input. They recite a system architecture that operates continuously with the support of disclosed subsystems. (c) In re Gazave, 379 F.2d 973
(CCPA 1967), it establishes that inventions must be rejected as "incredible" only when they contradict known physical principles. Here, the disclosure in the specification of the instant Application is consistent with the principle of electromagnetic induction: a PMG with stator windings driven by a mechanical shaft produces electricity, which is uncontroversial. (d) Applicant has provided prototype evidence, supported by declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 (Annexure E) that the system operates and supplies real electrical loads. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the current invention of the instant Application is not a perpetual motion machine, but a novel, externally-powered, efficiency-optimized drive and generator system.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The applicant’s “External power” is a battery/inverter subsystem provides initial startup energy (refer to “a” in the previous paragraph). A battery needs another power source to be useful in a power system because, by itself, it can only supply a finite amount of stored energy before it is depleted. To replenish the battery's chemical energy for continued electrical output, an external source like solar panels or the utility grid must be connected to it for charging. Without this other power source, the battery will quickly run out of energy and become useless for continuous power supply. The applicant’s system is not connected to any other external source (refer to “b” in the previous paragraph and previous paragraphs). Therefore, the applicant’s system does not work as presented.
Regarding the applicant’s Annexures on pages 22-23 from the remarks document, the applicant provides “calculations and efficiencies” of the applicant’s system. The applicant’s DOES NOT provide the power input readings to calculate the power output as required when calculating the “efficiency” (see previous paragraphs regarding the calculation of power efficiency). The applicant description (refer to applicant’s “Overview” section from the specification) “Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may produce an output greater than the input necessary to run it” violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Such a device would be a form of perpetual motion machine, an impossibility because every real-world machine, including generators, experiences energy losses due to factors like friction and electrical resistance.
Moreover, the applicant annexure B, first page provides a description and provides an illustration as:
“NewtonGen, Inc has created an innovative on-demand generator. It produces continuous clean electricity with no need for any external energy source. With just 16 sq ft of space, you have the flexibility to install it on or off the grid, indoors or outdoors.” &
PNG
media_image2.png
366
1256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response by the examiner, NO generator system(s) would operate continuously “with no need for any external energy source” NOR produce power when NOT connected to the grid & would CONSUME power when connected to the grid. Moreover, NO system would INVERT 480VDC of power to 480VAC since there are always energy losses during the conversion process. Moreover, a 100% efficient engine is not possible due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that some energy is always lost as unusable heat during energy transfers and conversions.
IN CONCLUSION, the Examiner still finds the asserted utility not credible, inoperative and still rejected under the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. §101 and §l12(a).
Specification
The amendment filed 09/25/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
the “favorable operations” as recited on page 13, lines 3-5;
the “reduce external energy draw” as recited on page 13, lines 6-9;
the “minimizing external draw” as recited on page 14, lines 3-6;
the “power management architecture” as recited on page 14, lines 8-15;
the “PMG designs in wind turbine …” as recited on page 15, lines 9-11; &
the “annexures”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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, 3 & 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility; furthermore, what appears to be Applicant’s assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention is not credible.
Applicant appears to assert specific utility of the claimed invention Specification filed 09/17/2024) as follows:
Page 3, Lines 22-27 – “Further, the at least one automatic voltage regulator may be configured for powering the at least one drive system after the starting phase based on the electrical energy receivable by the at least one automatic voltage regulator from the at least one permanent magnet generator. Further, the driving of the at least one permanent magnet generator after the starting phase may be based on the powering of the at least one drive system after the starting phase.”
Page 13, Lines 27-34 – “Further, the NewtonGen dual PMG may not require any AC coupled or battery bank on or off-grid which saves money and improves safety. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may operate on-demand 24/7 365 days regardless of the environment. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may not require fuels, nuclear, sun, wind, or water to operate and may produce electricity at an efficiency greater than 85%. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator has the highest efficiency in renewable electricity and or public utilities on the earth today.”
Page 14, Lines 20-26 – “Further, a radial flux rare earth permanent magnet generator (PMG) may be synchronous, where the rotor windings have been replaced with permanent magnets for eliminating the excitation losses in a rotor, otherwise, typically 20 to 30 percent of the total generator losses may happen and leads to considerable higher part-load efficiency for the PMG compared to asynchronous generators. Further, the performance features may include a brushless structure, free maintenance, and electrical efficiency of 85%.”
Thus, it appears the Applicant’s asserted utility is an “energy generating system that produces power by the at least one permanent magnet generator, may operate on-demand 24/7 365 days regardless of the environment, and may not require any AC coupled or battery bank on or off-grid and may not require fuels, nuclear, sun, wind, or water to operate and may produce electricity at an efficiency greater than 85%.”
However, after careful and considered examination of the above asserted utility and the claimed structure, the device, as disclosed and claimed, would appear to be inoperative and a person skilled in the art would not consider the asserted utility as credible. See MPEP § 2164.
As best understood, and with particular attention to Figures 1-2, 15-17 & 27, the invention is understood to allegedly function as follows. The energy is allegedly generated by magnets FIG. 2:240 & 242 reciprocated by shafts FIG. 2:234 & 236 and springs FIG. 2:214 & 216, transitioning from an extended state to a compressed state based on the moving of the piston FIG. 2:206 and 208 within the cylinder FIG. 2:202 and 204.
However, it appears that, rather than operating as described, the system will not operate at all, or, if it does, it would only perform a portion of one cycle.
The system as claimed and disclosed is a closed system (i.e., no input of external energy is set forth in the claims or appears to be disclosed) describing at least one permanent magnet generator: conversion from potential energy (i.e., potential energy of magnets in an extended state to a compressed state by springs) to kinetic energy (i.e., kinetic energy of reciprocating magnets by springs), kinetic energy to mechanical energy (i.e., rotational energy of shaft(s)), allegedly “causing rotation of the generator(s) to generate electricity)”, electrical energy back to mechanical energy (i.e., rotational energy of shaft(s) and finally mechanical energy to potential energy (magnets in an extended state to a compressed state by springs), repeating the cycle 27/7, 365 days regardless of the environment. Further, the on-demand renewable energy generator may not require fuels, nuclear, sun, wind, or water to operate and may produce electricity at an efficiency greater than 85%.
All energy conversions taking place in the real world—i.e., those which are not “ideal” or theoretical—incur energy losses. Here, too, each conversion taking place will necessarily incur energy losses. Thus, even if a total electrical energy extracted from the system will be significantly less than the total potential energy originally present in the system. Said differently, there will be a net loss of energy when operating the system through even one “power producing cycle”.
Even, in arguendo, if the generating system’s least one permanent magnet generator was to be started by the starting phase, though some electrical energy is generated, thereby actuating one or more permanent magnet generator, there would not be enough electrical energy produced to continue the operation; thus, ultimately, any energy produced by the system would be less than the energy needed to run it.
Indeed, to operate the system continuously—i.e., “24/7/365” as appears to be alleged—the system would require an input of energy rather than providing any output of “electricity”. The system, as described and claimed, will therefore not “generate electrical energy” but will rather consume energy to operate on a continuous basis. However, the disclosure fails to show any source of external power, and therefore it is presumed that the power supposedly produced by the electrical generator(s) is the sole source of energy used to run the “least one permanent magnet generator”. This effectively makes the claimed device a “perpetual motion machine.”
There is no system or machine known in the art, which would operate without an input of power or fuel. Such a device teaches against the Law of Conservation of Energy. The attempts to create such a device have 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 generate a mechanical power without any initial source of power.
The principle of the Conservation of Energy denies the possibility of “perpetual motion” devices. The term “perpetual motion device” is understood by the examiner as:
(i) a device having an arrangement in which energy, in any one form, can be produced without energy, in some other form, being provided to and used by the device;
(ii) a device which could be made to perform work for an indefinite time (thus giving out energy) without being supplied with or consuming external energy; and/or
(iii) a device capable of producing more energy than what it requires to operate.
In this particular case, the claimed invention alleges, at least, to be capable of performing work for an indefinite time—i.e., operating “24/7/” by “providing a continuous reciprocating magnets in the least one permanent magnet generator to produce the desired amount of energy without requiring fuel, nuclear energy, sun, wind, or water, providing the kinetic force” (i.e., ii above); and of “produc[ing] electrical energy”—i.e., producing more energy than what it requires to operate (i.e., iii above).
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).
Applicant has not provided any evidence that the claimed structure will perform as stated, i.e., that the device will be able to generate electrical power on a sustained basis.
When a patent applicant presents an application describing an invention that contradicts known scientific principles, or relies on previously undiscovered scientific phenomenon, the burden is on the examiner simply to point out this fact to the applicant. The burden shifts to applicant to demonstrate that his invention, as claimed, is either operable or does not violate said basic scientific principles, or those basic scientific principles are incorrect. As stated by the Patent Office Board of Appeals, Newman v. Quigg 681 F. Supp. 16, at 18, 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1880 (1988).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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, 3 & 5-13 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 3 & 5-13, see the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 section above for further discussion.
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 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 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 ttps://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