So sue me.

[Jon J Hutton]

Thanks Murilo......don't we all wish it was that simple.

JJH

[Jim Williams]

jim_mich

I regret posting Saturday without the law uncovered by the patent librarian, but here it is. MPEP 706.03(a) Rejections under 35 U.S.C 101. ll. UTILITY. "A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion."

What this means is in your rule stated, "With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion,...", the reason perpetual motion is excepted is because it is ruled by 706.03(a)(ll.) that it is inoperative, a law which takes precedence This also means if the examiner doesn't request a working model, then he must find the invention inoperative or otherwise the inventor must prove it operative without a model. As a result I would say it is inferred he must request a working model. Also, "If operability of a device is questioned,...", section doesn't apply as perpetual motion is already inoperative and is not a question. Finally, if operability is questionable, then 706.03(a)(l.)(C) Scientific Principle applies which is, "A scientific principle divorced from any tangible structure, (like a working model) , can be rejected as not within statutory classes. In other words even if only by mathematical proof alone a working model is still required. Further, the existence of class/subclass 415/916 Perpetual Motion further infers that a working model is sufficient proof that a perpetual motion invention can exist.

I would suggest it is the law a working model is required for a patent to be granted on perpetual motion and that perpetual motion inventions can exist, it's just that none do so as of yet.

Jim W.

[jim_mich]

Jim W, MPEP is the "Manual of Patent Examining Procedure". It is the handbook or manual that tells the patent examiners how to do their job of examining patent applications. It is one step below Patent rules, which is one step below Patent Law. If you want a copy of this huge manual (44mb total) then you can download it in four chunks:

Chapters 100 - 1000 ( 9mb)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... _chap1.zip

Chapters 1100 - 2700 (16mb)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... _chap2.zip

Apps. and Remainder (7mb)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... 6_appx.zip

PDF Index Files (12mb)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mp ... _index.zip


This is how I would expect the PTO to handle a PM application:

The application will go though the initial incoming examination to determine if the drawings are good enough and to determine what category so an examiner with experience in that category can be assigned. As soon as the examiner sees the patent as being perpetual motion it will be initially rejected on the grounds that it won't work (inoperativeness) because it is assumed that perpetual motion is impossible. At this point the inventor or his/her attorney challenges the rejection stating that the assumption of inoperativeness is incorrect, since the inventor has built a working model that is available for inspection. The inventor or his/her attorney then asks the examiner to please read the patent application in more detail because the means, methods and reasons why the invention works are plainly disclosed in the application. It's possible and even probable that the examiner never fully read the application, and that he/she just initially rejects all PM applications when received. The examiner will then take more interest in the application and will take the time to fully read it. The inventor can expect to receive a request from the examiner to submit the invention for examination. It might be a good idea to talk with the examiner on the phone as early as possible and explain that a working wheel has been built and that it's available if requested. The examiner will take one of two positions. He/she may take a hard nosed opinion of unbelief or may take a keen interest in helping the inventor obtain a patent. After all, it's the examiners job to help inventors obtain patents. The reasons for rejecting applications is because they fail to meet the high standards and all the rules set forth, not because the examiner is trying to be a nasty person.

At some time during the examination someone will suddenly realize that the inventor is not just another ignorant loony. It's very likely that high up military people will suddenly make a request to make the patent secret on the grounds of national security. This is why the information about a working wheel should be released just as soon as the application is assigned an application number. Normally you would not want to release information about an invention until all the kinks have been worked out and it looks like the patent will issue. But I feel that a PM patent is a special case. Therefore the application must be very well written so that it stands a very good chance of being accepted as written.

These are just my opinions.

[Jim Williams]

jim_mich

I believe your analysis is very well done, but it does fall apart in some respects. The rule I stated from the MPEP is the rule itself and not an interpretation of a rule. The rule is in direct reference to Patent Law which in this case is 35 U.S.C. 101. Title 35 is Patent Law under United States Code. 101 is the Section of Title 35.

The SF library I use has a Depository Patent Library and two copies of the MPEP, one computer and one in books. The computer one, unlike the MPEP available at www.uspto.gov , also has keyword searching, which is useful for searching such terms as perpetual motion. Thank you regardless for the information on downloading the MPEP.

I would guess you are correct in the process up until the inventor claims to have a working model. At that point the examiner may request the working model as specified in the MPEP and the inventor can supply it. At that point history is changed and the first patent on perpetual motion is granted. The examiner won't want to reexamine the application, he will want to see that working model. If it is a hostile examiner he may refuse to accept a working model and reject the application outright. But it is the examiner who has that choice. I disagree an examiner is there to help the inventor to obtain a patent. Applications are prosecuted. I can see where examiners may have helped certain inventors whom had thought they had achieved perpetual motion or at least a gravity motor, by showing them what part of their application could be patented after their attempt at PM had failed.

I don't think the Patent Office thinks of applicants for perpetual motion as ignorant loonies every waking moment at least as evidenced by the existence of a legal procedure by which a patent for PMs can be granted. I also think the military would need change the law to prevent a PM from being released as public knowlege. MPEP 706.03(b) covers nuclear weapons for example, not 706.03(a) covering perpetual motion.

Regardless, I'd say that the Patent Office requires a working model is correct.

Jim W.

[Jon J Hutton]

I would say that the patent office has a real screw loose..unless I am not unerstanding what they mean by the quote below......would someone like to explain this please. I am refering to what is in bold type

What can be patented – utility patents are provided for a new, nonobvious and useful:

Process
Machine
Article of manufacture
Composition of matter
Improvement of any of the above
Note: In addition to utility patents, encompassing one of the categories above, patent protection is available for (1) ornamental design of an article of manufacture or (2) asexually reproduced plant varieties by design and plant patents.

What cannot be patented:

Laws of nature
Physical phenomena
Abstract ideas
Literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works (these can be Copyright protected). Go to the Copyright Office.
Inventions which are:
Not useful (such as perpetual motion machines); or
Offensive to public morality
Invention must also be:

Novel
Nonobvious
Adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
Claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms

[jim_mich]

Your quote comes from: http://www1.uspto.gov/go/com/iip/patents.htm

This seems to be a distortion of PTO policy. PTO policy is to reject perpetual motion on the grounds of inoperativeness. They assume that all perpetual motion devices won't work. If they don't work then they have no use, except at paper weights or land fill. Such uses as paper weights or land fill are not patentable because every machine has these potential uses. Therefore perpetual motion devices are said to have no use. A utility patent must be useful; it must have utility.

A rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.

[ovyyus]

What cannot be patented:

Laws of nature
Physical phenomena

IMO, a person who could prove CF (inertia) or gravity is an energy source would have discovered a new physical phenomena in nature and publication of that discovery would ensure their name in the history books - they would receive both fame and fortune. If, on the other hand, that same person decided that rather than accepting the obvious rewards for such a feat they should instead struggle to lock up a measly utility patent which strives to somehow harness such a breakthrough energy source then wouldn't that person be, well, stupid. Sorry, I can't fathom the logic there.

Prove that a new energy source exists - which is not patentable - after which the untold applications would become so obvious that a bunch of monkeys could work them out and scrap over the unending utility patents.

IMO, anyone smart enough to discover a completely new energy source should be smart enough not to totally miss the point. I am dumbfounded.

[Jim Williams]

The examiner doesn't get to determine wheather a perpetual motion application should be rejected based on unoperativeness. That is determined for him by MPEP rules. What the examiner can do by the rules is request a working model from the inventor. If a working model is produced then the patent can be granted and it becomes the first patent originating from class/subclass 415/916 - perpetual motion.

Wheeler

My favorite Chinese patent is cn98767. When the Chinese Patent Office first went online, it printed the full patent, but then it changed policy. It reminds me of US Patent 3,412,482 FIG 7 but it used weighted pistons in cylinders instead of bellows. Too bad neither one actually works. Out of computer time.

Jim W.

[Jim Williams]

ovyyus

In defense of patents.

Perhaps not the best example, but the difference between the concept of absolute zero and attempting to create absolute zero in a lab, could be seen like the difference between perpetual motion and attempting to create a perpetual motion machine. The difference in creating absolute zero and perpetual motion in real life is in the machine that does the actual generation. That machine is patentable. In terms of absolute zero Norwegians have developed a machine that approaches absolute zero within billionths of a degree. I just find that machine more interesting than the concept. It would not be so significant to conceive of a new energy source as it would be to build a machine that utilizes that energy source. Patents have their place. Just my opinion.

[Jim Williams]

Man brings perpetual motion machine idea to the Patent Office. Patent Office says it's inoperative, but asks for a working model. Man supplies working model. Patent is granted. End of story.

[ovyyus]

It would not be so significant to conceive of a new energy source as it would be to build a machine that utilizes that energy source.

I don't think it's necessarily significant, or difficult, to conceive things - it's proving them that's always the hard part.

Proving that a new energy source exists would probably have considerably greater scientific impact than a Norwegian lab achieving a billionth of a degree above absolute zero with a clever machine.

I'm not suggesting that patents don't have their place. I am suggesting that in order to create a mousetrap you need to know what a mouse is. Actually, I guess that's not entirely true... I could create a Zettitrap based on some unproved and made-up notion of what a Zetti might be, it's just that it probably won't really have all that much utility :)

[KAS]

Man brings perpetual motion machine idea to the Patent Office. Patent Office says it's inoperative, but asks for a working model. Man supplies working model. Patent is granted. End of story.

Jim,

I believe this to be correct.
On a previous post I attached a report of an Patent appeal for a Gent who disagreed with the patent office decision. At the appeal stage only, the examining engineer asked him if he had a working model. Alas, he only had a lever mechanism. The examiner concluded that this alone was not enough evidence to prove a working system.

I know this is virgin territory, but I believe that had he produced a fully working model at that stage the examiner would have no choice but to accept the application, contrary to the rules.

He would have hade a hell of a battle dismissing it.

Bill,

I like you analogy. What we are doing is trying to invent a space alien trap. Now, based on concrete proof, what size and shape is a space alien?

Kas

[Jim Williams]

ovyyus

All I was arguing is that patents do have their place. What I wasn't arguing is what is best to be done with that freshly minted patent. Being an energy miser and holding out on the invention for as much profit as could be made from it would be ignorant and probably dangerous.

I agree proving a new energy source would be more significant than how to utilize it. I can still argue that the use of a new energy source would have more impact on humanity as a whole than its discovery alone, regardless of its impact on scientists. However, without the discovery there is no significance or impact at all. That, of course, explains the interest in PM.

[Jim Williams]

I'm going to complete this thought on the chance that I haven't. I made a statement when I first became aware of Bessler's Wheel that there was a law stating that the Patent Office required a working model on a perpetual motion machine. This was disputed by jim_mich. At the time I also thought I had an example of a working wheel in a patent which was also disputed somewhat universally. I dropped both assertions. But now I still stand my assertion that there is a law the Patent Office requires a working model of a perpetual motion machine for a patent to be granted, that law states that working models may be requested, by which I infer in the absense of a working model perpetual motion in inoperative. jim_mich is correct, there is no law actually stating a working model is required. It is inferred. The law is only if one has a working model is that model required. I think we were both right.

[jim_mich]

Basically it boils down to the fact that an invention must accomplish something other than act as a paperweight. If you state in a patent application that your invention will turn perpetually with no conventional input of energy then it had better darn well do as you say, else you have committed fraud.

There are three type of patents in the USA.

[1] Utility Patent
[2] Design Patent
[3] Plant Patent

A design patent covers thing like the shape of a Coke bottle. A PMM is not a plant, even though Bessler talked about it acting like it was alive.

So a PMM patent would be a utility patent and not a design or plant patent. "Utility" come from the base word "use". A patent must be useful; it must have a utility or use. If you state that the "use" is to turn continually then that is what your invention must do in order to be granted a patent. Since the patent office people think that perpetual motion machines are impossible, it becomes your responsibility to prove that your PMM is useful by proving that it works. Usually an examiner can look at a drawing and see if an invention will be useful and work as stated in the application. But when presented with a drawing of a PMM it may be very difficult to determine if it will work or not. The examiner will lean towards saying that it won't work. Then is becomes his word against the inventor. A simple solution to this stalemate is to present a working example of the machine. Otherwise the patent office will reject the application on grounds of lack of utility (usefulness). This is why the PTO examiners are advised to ask for a working model of any perpetual motion machine.