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 .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
Applicants are encouraged to avail themselves of the interview available, as discussions between an Applicant and an Examiner are often indispensable to advance the prosecution of a patent application by improving the mutual understanding of specific issues therein.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Preliminary Formalities
A thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application.
Specifically, the application appears to disclose, and comprises claims drawn to, a perpetual motion-type device. Patentability of this type of device is precluded pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. See below for further discussion.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention, as best as it may be understood, appears to be inoperative and therefore lacks utility; furthermore, the assertion of specific and substantial utility for the invention is not credible.
Applicant has asserted specific utility of the claimed invention (see first page of Specification filed 11/06/2024, lines 4-6, emphasis added) as follows:
“The present invention generally relates to power generation, and more particularly to a kinetic energy recycling system that reduces noise, lowers power demand, and enables power regeneration for reuse.”
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 Figure 1, the “invention,” as the disclosure may be best understood, appears to function as follows.
Electrical energy from “power storage component 11” (which comprises a rechargeable battery; see, e.g., page 8, lines 14-15) is fed to “driving device 1” (which comprises a DC or AC motor; see, e.g., p. 8, l. 14) whereby the “driving device 1” transforms electrical energy to rotational energy to drive “first eccentric shaft 21” to rotate. This, in turn, drives “second eccentric shaft 22” to rotate, via “coupling component 23” (which comprises a gear/pulley/sprocket set; see, e.g., p. 9, ll. 3-4). The rotational power from the “second eccentric shaft 22” is transferred via “acceleration mechanism 3” (which also comprises a gear/pulley/sprocket set; see, e.g., p. 9, ll. 3-4) to drive “power generation device 4” (which comprises a DC or AC generator; see, e.g., p. 9, ll. 6-7) to thereby generate an electrical output. The electrical output is then transferred via “conversion device 5” (which may comprise a rectifier or inverter as well as a transformer; see p. 9, ll. 9-11) to be output at the “power output component 6” via “DC” and “AC output unit[s] 61, 62,” respectively.
Furthermore, no external source of input electrical power to “power storage component 11” is explicitly set forth; the only input electrical power to the “power storage component 11” is disclosed as coming from the “power generation device 4” (see p. 13, ll. 17-18)—i.e., the electrical power is fed from the “power storage component 11” to the “power generation device 4,” then through shafts 21, 22 and the gears/pulleys/sprockets of “coupling component 23” and “acceleration mechanism 3” and then finally “back into the power storage component 11” (see Id.).
There are at least two issues which call into question Applicant’s asserted utility. First, the system appears to be a closed system with no input source of mechanical power at all, and no input source of electrical power aside from whatever initial charge the “power storage component 11” may have. Without any source of input power, the system could not actually output any “power,” let alone provide any “power generation”. Second, even if, as understood above, it is the “power storage component 11” which provides a source of input electrical energy, the system, as understood above, would consume more energy than it would produce—i.e., it would not and could not operate to “generat[e]” or “regenerat[e]” any “power” as asserted.
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 would necessarily incur energy losses. Thus, any electrical energy extracted from the system and output by the “power generation device 4” would be significantly less than the electrical energy input to “driving device 1” from “power storage component 11”. Said differently, there would be a net loss of energy when operating the system.
Thus, it appears that, rather than operating as described, the system would not operate at all (as no external input source of electricity to charge “power storage component 11” is expressly disclosed), or, if it did operate, the system would consume more energy to operate (i.e., even if “power storage component 11” were initially fully charged, the amount of electrical energy output by “power generation device 4” would be less than the amount of electrical energy input to “driving device 1”) than it could produce and would not produce any net positive energy.
But, again, no source of external input energy is expressly disclosed.
There is no system or machine known in the art, which would operate without 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 producing energy output by “power generation device 4” without any explicit energy input to “power storage component 11”; to be designed to “infinitely run”; and, taking into consideration necessary energy losses due to mechanical/electrical energy transformations, to be capable of producing more energy than required to operate (that is, i, ii, and 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 would perform as stated, i.e., that the device would be able to generate electrical power, either instantaneously or, especially, 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).
N.B. - See associated requirement for a working model pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.91 below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support
thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as follows:
Claim 1: “a driving device,” “at least one power storage component,” “a coupling component,” “an acceleration mechanism,” “a power generation device,” “a conversion device,” “a rectification module,” “a transformer module,” a “power output component,” a “DC output unit,” an “AC output unit,” “a feedback unit,” and “a human-machine interface”.
Claim 11: “a battery management module”.
Claim 12: “a wireless connection module”.
Claim 13: a “detection and display device”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14 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 1-14, the claims 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. See the Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 section above for further discussion. Accordingly, the claims necessarily fail to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2167.07(I)(A).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-13, the limitations “battery management module,” “wireless connection module,” and “detection and display device” each appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, these limitations appear to invoke, and are being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what any of the “battery management module,” “wireless connection module,” and “detection and display device” may be or what corresponding structure(s) each may comprise. The specification discusses these features in the paragraph spanning page 15, line 11 to page 16, line 6 but, though the features are named, and some functionality may be discussed, the specification does not provide a written description of what each may actually be or what corresponding structure(s) each may comprise. Said differently, whereas the specification may describe the function of each, it fails to provide any written description of what structure(s) may be used to achieve the claimed functionality.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines1 5-6 and line 12, the limitations “a first hollow section” and “a second hollow section” are vague and indefinite. Specifically, both the claims and the specification fail to make clear what a “hollow section” may be; as shown in Fig. 1, the “first hollow section 212” appears simply to be a void space and not a separate element. If each “hollow section” is, e.g., defined by a shell or some other physical element, such should be made clear. If not, then the claim appears to be claiming an empty space, which would not appear to comprise patentable subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, lines 13-14, the limitation “both mounted on a second axle” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what elements the term “both” is referring to.
Regarding claim 1, lines 19-22, the limitation “a power generation device connected to the acceleration mechanism, where the power generation device’s generation of electricity is assisted through an opposing relationship between the first direction and the second direction” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the power generation device’s generation of electricity” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how the “power generation device” could possibly “generat[e]” any “electricity” as claimed.
Third, and also relatedly, the claim fails to make clear both i) what “an opposing relationship between the first direction and the second direction” may be; and ii) how such an “opposing relationship” could possibly “assist[]” any “generation of electricity” as claimed.
Fourth, the limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 1, second page, line 6, the limitation “the output voltage of the at least one DC output unit or the at least one AC output unit” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a battery management module electrically connected to the at least one power storage component” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what a “battery management module” may comprise and how such a “module” may “manage[]” a “battery”.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a wireless connection module for connecting to an electronic device via a network” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what a “wireless connection module” may comprise and how such a “module” may “connect[] to an electronic device via a network”.
Regarding claims 2-14, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Models - 37 CFR § 1.91
The following is a quotation of paragraph(s) (a) and (b) of 37 C.F.R. 1.91:
(a) A model or exhibit will not be admitted as part of the record of an application unless it:
(1) Substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84; or
(2) Is specifically required by the Office.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a model, working model, or other physical exhibit may be required by the Office if deemed necessary for any purpose in examination of the application.
The applicant is required to furnish a working model of the claimed invention for the purpose of demonstrating operability, utility and patentability.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0132244 A1 and US 2008/0157534 A1 disclose similar kinetic energy “recycling” systems including a motor used to drive a flywheel to drive a generator, thereby either partially or substantially rendering obvious the claimed invention.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing a response, should fully consider each of the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Applicant should, in response to this Office Action, provide support for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or feature(s) in the original drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added. See 35 U.S.C. §132(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
June 26, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 As numbered by Applicant in the claims filed 11/06/2024.
Prosecution Insights