So sue me.

[evgwheel]

rlortie
I believe you are right, now the question is what you would (or are allowed) to call your patent?
I believe there are restrictions

[rlortie]

Evg,

Breaking down the patent sub-sections as explained by Jim Williams I would not call it a PM machine as that sub category is zilch! I would probably call it a gravity induced engine or gravity motor. Then it could sit besides an electric motor or combustion engine.

I believe that if one has an operating model that actually works, they will be be able to patent and own that which makes it work! I appreciate that there are a lot of patents that one may be accused of infringing on. But the fact remains, you have something different, something that no one else has obtained a patent for. otherwise we would not still be looking for it.

Some that have patents have included such statements as "this patent is meant to include the scope of any improvements" Etc... They know theirs does not work, but they want a piece of the action when somebody does find the solution.

If you have it and wish to be stingy, who do you believe would win in a lawsuit, you with the genie in your pocket or the poor sap who claims you stole his invention. I do not feel that way. If I were to be the lucky person and someone claimed infringement, I would be willing to sit down and negotiate the problem, look for comparisons. If I believed that there patent was in fact filed under the pretense of future discovery's, then they would find me very hard to deal with!

Ralph

[evgwheel]

Ralph
There are many links on-line diy patents e.g. http://www.patentsonline.com.au/patent/phow.html
With all those people who are claiming that their working wheel is only a few weeks away (very bold statements), the future looks hopeful

[rlortie]

Evg,

Another that has many links for searching and informing is:
http://www.ipfrontline.com/ Type "Patent cafe" into Google and you will find a lead for just about anything and everything you need to know about patents.

I believe that this is what Claudio used when he informed us he was applying for a patent. To bad we never heard the outcome.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

evg .. you don't have to apply for a patent for a whole of wheel - just a 'method' patent for the principle - like the Wright Bros didn't patent an airplane but how to control it in flight [which everyone needed to know & apply in their airplanes] - in the same way you could detail your 'principle of motive force for free energy extraction' without patenting an entire wheel - the principle is after all the critical bit & as Bill said recently the rest should be dumb easy [& have many variations of assembly which could get around your whole of wheel patent application].

I myself would design some experiment to test the fundamental principle to see that it had the potential I hoped for to turn a wheel - after confirming the theory with a physical test of the principle I would start to look at the way forward from there - but without a POP physical model to at least confirm your fundamental principle I wouldn't even think about patenting or applying for anything - premature, JMO's.

There have been a couple of hopeful & updated remarks lately from experienced members regarding their designs being built & tested very soon - nothing will be confirmed as the correct principle to use until these wheels turn & we hear a report from them about their success, or not - too early to get all worked up just yet IMO, though obviously there is a high level of belief in their own designs, & coming from such experienced members, statistically it should bode well that at least one of their principles will be correct [they are all different] - lets hope so !

[Jim Williams]

I believe applying for a patent named perpetual motion machine would be just fine to the patent office, it's just that it's on the inventor to prove a patent should be granted, which so far there have been none. The USPTO class/subclass for perpetual motion machines is 415/916.

While I'm at it the International Patent Classification (IPC) for "Alledged Perpetua Mobilia" is f03b17/04. A free search of the esp@cenet database of the European Patent Office ( www.espacenet.com ) will turn up over a 1000 patents of such patents worldwide which are fun to read, although I don't believe a single one of them actually works as a PMM.

I lack the computer skills to provide direct links, but the search is worth it.

Jim W.

[Wheeler]

Jim W.
Nice work and research.

I think it may be that having a patent certificate for Perpetual Motion sitting on your fireplace mantel is a symbol of prestige now.

We simple ones who seek to find the real Besslerwheel or a design of their own don't understand why someone wants a PM Patent without proof.

It is obvious now that if you have time and money to put into getting a PM patent, you must be of the upper income families, or you have read all your comic books and now you need another hobby.

Anyway I don't think the patent offices minds the extra cash flow, and it gives them something to laugh about after dinner.

By the way you can paste a link in your posts easy.

Next time your at your favorite web page, just right click somewhere on the page, (maybe somewhere in the middle of it)and your should see a pop up list with the option (Copy link location).
Just click on it, and you have it. Now you can open notepad, and right click.
Now you see the pop up option to paste. Just click on paste and you have a copy pasted to your notepad or clipboard. You also can just hit paste while your writing a post.

Do a test and see if it works, you can aways edit the post and try again.
Yours truly

[Jim Williams]

Wheeler

I enjoy the Chinese patents in particular. Unlike US patents, I don't believe all countries require an invention to function as stated for a patent to be granted. The United States is still a major exception. Contrary to what jim_mich has attempted to prove citing the MPEP of the USPTO, I still believe the Patent Office does require a working model of any invention claiming to be perpetual motion. We just interpret the MPEP rules differently. I note I could just call the Patent Office and find out, which I haven't done.

Thank you for attempting to show me how to save an address. I use a library computer which may explain why I have so much difficulty getting my attempts to work so far.

Jim W.

[jim_mich]

This is from the official Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) rules for examining patents:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... cfr37s1.91

§ 1.91 Models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent. - Patent Rules

§ 1.91 Models or exhibits not generally admitted as part of application or patent.

(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;

(2) Is specifically required by the Office; or

(3) Is filed with a petition under this section including:

(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h); and

(ii) An explanation of why entry of the model or exhibit in the file record is necessary to demonstrate patentability.

(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.

(c) Unless the model or exhibit substantially conforms to the requirements of § 1.52 or § 1.84 under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, it must be accompanied by photographs that show multiple views of the material features of the model or exhibit and that substantially conform to the requirements of § 1.84.

[Revised, 62 FR 53131, Oct. 10, 1997, effective Dec. 1, 1997; para. (a)(3)(i) revised, 65 FR 54604, Sept. 8, 2000, effective Nov. 7, 2000; para. (c) added, 69 FR 56481, Sept. 21, 2004, effective Oct. 21, 2004]

This is the PTO's interpretation of these rules concerning perpetual motion devices:
From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... sect608.03

Models or exhibits are generally not admitted as part of an application or patent unless the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 are satisfied.

With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.

The patent laws says that models are generally not admitted. The law says nothing about perpetual motion devices needing a working model. It does say that the patent office can require a model if deemed necessary for any purpose. The patent office (not the patent law) says that a perpetual motion machine would be an exception. This is because operability of the device would be in questioned. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing. Trying to prove operability on paper by mathematical formula might be difficult, whereas a physical working model would be instant proof.

Regardless, the patent office has the right to request a model of your perpetual motion device, simply because they have the right to request a model of any invention if they think it's necessary for any reason.

[Wheeler]

Wheeler

I enjoy the Chinese patents in particular. Unlike US patents, I don't believe all countries require an invention to function as stated for a patent to be granted. The United States is still a major exception. Contrary to what jim_mich has attempted to prove citing the MPEP of the USPTO, I still believe the Patent Office does require a working model of any invention claiming to be perpetual motion. We just interpret the MPEP rules differently. I note I could just call the Patent Office and find out, which I haven't done.

Thank you for attempting to show me how to save an address. I use a library computer which may explain why I have so much difficulty getting my attempts to work so far.

Jim W.

Jim your welcome.
You most likely can do it from the library too. Just ask the librarian to help.
By the way just for fun, what is your favorite PM Patent?

>Regardless, the patent office has the right to request a model of your perpetual motion device, simply because they have the right to request a model of any invention if they think it's necessary for any reason. <

It could bring the biggest lawsuit ever if any patent was ordered to work.
Any thoughts?

[Jim Williams]

jim _mich

You are quoting the very rule I'm using for my interpretation. " With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office..." The difference between laws us ordinary folk must not break and laws written for patent examiners is that examiners need a law stated in order to proceed. Although it is stated that if the operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her way of so doing, it doesn't exclude this rule is to the exception of cases involving perpetual motion as well. Where you have me and I agree is there is no specific rule where what to do with perpetual motion is spelled out rather than it is excepted. USC Title 35 Sec 101 doesn't spell out perpetual motion, yet there is another MPEP rule that refers perpetual motion to Title 35 Sec 101 shown me by a patent libarian yesterday. Of course, I forgot to bring a copy of the law with me today, but I will state it in another post. Curious enough the first thing the librarian told me when I asked was that the Patent Office requires a working model for perpetual motion. I pointed out the dispute I was having with you and asked her for the law. My instincts tell me you are going to turn out to be correct, but I'll post the law

[Jon J Hutton]

If I had a pm engine I would apply for a patent without changing one thing. If I was not granted a patent I would sue the United States Patent Office for failing to do what it was formed to do for the amount of the value of the invention. I would be given all the coverage at the expense of the U.S. government and win the case when it was all said and done because I would show the world the device.

JJH

O.K. perhaps a bit optimistic but I think I would at least stand a chance.

[murilo]

Jon, hello!
Great and beautiful avatar you got!
If you make it as a circle and put a shaft at the center, it will turn on c.w. for ever...:)
You got to a just fine idea! Great!
( I think I have seing something like this when I was a kid... not sure...)
regs. M.

[Wheeler]

The patent office can simply stamp your PM machine as a National Security and that ends any issues you may have with them.

However the patent office is for intellectual property and not property of the intellect.
If they demand a working model, it would first have to pass in a law that says intellectual property must have proof before patent.
Thousands of patents are issued that do not work.

The patent right is for the person thinking and sending in for a patent,and not for products that actually work. Although many do.

[jim_mich]

For anyone interested, here are the US PTO rules and laws available from the Patent and Trademark Office.

PTO Consolidated Rules:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... _rules.pdf (3,229 KB size)

PTO Consolidated Laws:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... d_laws.pdf (878 KB size)


This is the only law concerning models:
35 U.S.C. 114 Models, specimens.
The Director may require the applicant to furnish a model of convenient size to exhibit advantageously the several parts of his invention.

I posted above the rules concerning models.

An interesting read in the patent law is 35 U.S.C. 181 Secrecy of certain inventions and withholding of patent.