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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 – 6, “wherein said affixed leverage arm has a weight at its distal end” should read - - wherein a weight is affixed to a distal end of the leverage arm - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 – 9 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.
More specifically, claims 1 – 9 are directed to an energy storage and mechanical power generation system using a flywheel assembly mounted on a central power output driveshaft axle within a metal machine cabinet. A mass affixed to a leverage arm is lifted by a motorized belt and pulley system to a predetermined height, wherein centripetal force guides the mass inward and contributes to rotation of the flywheel while compressing a coiled spring and storing elastic strain energy. Upon reaching the threshold height, the belt disengages and gravity causes the mass to descend, during which centrifugal force drives the mass outward and the coiled spring releases stored energy to generate additional torque. A torsion spring coupled between a glide rod and a hub mounted to the flywheel stores and releases strain energy as the leverage arm moves, further driving flywheel rotation. The rotational torque is transferred through the central driveshaft axle to an electrical generator to convert the rotational energy into electrical energy, which may be stored in a battery storage system for later use. See [0009]–[0010], [0028]–[0036], [0037]–[0043], [0045], [0048]–[0058], [0061]–[0067].
The specification repeatedly characterizes the system as producing energy and provides multiple statements that imply operation with minimal or reduced dependence on external input and/or continuous generation.
For example:
The invention is described as a “system for producing and storing energy” and a “method of energy production and storage.” (See [0001], [0009], [0010], [0027].)
The system is described as using a “motor with low power outputs” to lift the mass while the descent “drive[s] the rotation of the flywheel” and the system “generate[s] torque” for conversion to electricity. (See [0032]–[0034], [0052], [0055], [0064]–[0066].)
The disclosure suggests that the system “primarily [is] designed to harness gravitational and mechanical forces internally, reducing dependency on external inputs,” and that it can provide a “continuous energy supply” and “continuous energy generation even during periods when external power is unavailable.” (See [0070]–[0071], [0095]–[0097].)
The disclosure attributes increased kinetic energy/torque to “centripetal force,” “centrifugal force,” and spring release in a way that implies these internal forces add energy rather than merely redistribute energy previously input by the motor. See [0035]–[0040], [0062]–[0063], [0074]–[0079], [0086]–[0089].
However, the claimed system requires lifting a mass using a motorized belt and pulley system (claims 1 and 6), followed by the mass falling under gravity to rotate the flywheel and drive a generator. In the absence of a disclosure establishing a net positive energy balance (or a clear storage/discharge context where output is less than or equal to input minus losses), the purported operation appears to rely on a net energy gain from gravity and internal mechanical effects (springs/centripetal/centrifugal forces). Such a system, as implied, reasonably appears inoperative because the energy recovered from dropping a lifted mass cannot exceed the energy required to lift the mass (and will be less due to friction, inefficiencies, and conversion losses).
Accordingly, the asserted utility of “producing energy” as suggested is not credible, and claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claims 1 – 9 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. The specification, while enabling a general conceptual description, does not reasonably enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation, particularly as to achieving the claimed/represented operational results of energy generation/storage using the described interplay of gravitational forces, centripetal/centrifugal effects, spring energy release, and flywheel output to a generator.
The standard for determining whether the Specification meets the enablement requirement is whether a person skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858F.2d 731,737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
If the examiner's basis for questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure is reasonable, the burden shifts to appellants to come forward with evidence to rebut this challenge. In re Doyle, 482 F.2d 1385, 1392 (CCPA 1973).
An invention that is "inoperative" (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a "useful" invention in the meaning of the patent law. See, e.g., Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
A disclosure of a utility satisfies the utility requirement of Section 101 unless there are reasons for the artisan to question the truth of such disclosure. In re Gaubert, 524 F.2d 1222, 1224 (CCPA 1975); In re Langer, 503 F.2d 1380, 1391-92 (CCPA 1974).
When a patent applicant presents an application describing an invention that contradicts known scientific principles, the burden is on the Examiner simply to point out this fact to Appellant....The burden shifts to Appellant to demonstrate either that their invention, as claimed, does not violate basic scientific principles or that those basic scientific principles are incorrect. Newman v. Quigg, 681 F. Supp. 16, 18 (D.D.C. 1988).
The examiner addressed the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. § 101 together. The lack of utility because of inoperativeness (a question of fact), and the absence of enablement (a question of law), are closely related grounds of unpatentability. Exparte Dash, 27 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
Specifically, the Examiner rejected claims 1 – 9 as lacking enablement under § 112, and as inoperative under § 101, because the invention contradicts the principle of conservation of energy, and because the Specification does not explain how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The disclosure includes numerous functional statements about energy transfer and system performance but does not provide sufficient detail to enable the claimed system across its scope.
For example:
The specification does not provide a working example or quantitative disclosure that teaches the required relationship between:
motor power/torque to lift the mass via belt/pulley
gravitational potential energy of the mass
spring constants and stored energy in coiled/torsion/spiral springs
flywheel inertia and RPM
generator load
overall round-trip efficiency.See generally [0009]–[0014], [0034]–[0043], [0052]–[0067], [0073]–[0089].
The disclosure references disengagement at “threshold height” / “predetermined height,” braking, sensors, and controllers, but does not teach how the belt disengages, how phase is controlled, how oscillations are stabilized, or how runaway/instability is prevented, especially as load varies at the generator. See [0037], [0054], [0074]–[0082], [0080]–[0081].
Critical parameters such as mass values, lift height, rod/arm geometry, track geometry, spring constants, torsion spring preload, flywheel moment of inertia, allowed rotational speed range, bearing selection, friction and losses, belt tension, and structural limits are not disclosed in a manner that would allow a skilled artisan to construct an operable system meeting the functional statements in the specification across the claim scope. See [0028]–[0032], [0044]–[0046], [0073]–[0079].
The disclosure attributes increased kinetic energy and enhanced torque to centripetal/centrifugal forces and spring release (e.g., [0035]–[0040], [0076]–[0079]), but does not teach how these mechanisms produce the purported operation when accounting for losses and conservation principles. This omission increases the amount of experimentation required to determine whether and how the claimed invention operates as asserted.
Under the rule expressed in Newman, 681 F. Supp. at 18, the Examiner established a reasonable basis for questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, and shifted the burden of proof to Appellant to come forward with evidence to support their claim that their device produces the purported operation without accounting for system losses and the conservation of energy.
Applicant is required to furnish a proof of operability of the claimed invention, which would be considered as adequate evidence (*) to overcome this Office rejection based on the doctrine of the conservation of energy. See MPEP § 608.03; 37 CFR 1.91.
(*) The adequate evidence is such evidence, which a reasonable mind of one of the ordinary skill in the art would accept as adequate for the objective truth of the statement. A working model of the invention is one example of the adequate evidence. An existing operable device working on the same principle as the claimed invention is another example of the adequate evidence. Scientific publications and a personal declaration without actual proof of operability are not considered adequate evidence.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/PHILLIP A JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617