PART 3 OF 3
- Part 1 - Found: QMoGen US Patent Awarded
- Part 2 - Interview with QMoGen Patent Holder, Jesse McQueen
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
I wrote the following analysis to be sent to some patent attorneys to get their opinion about what I consider sufficiently inaccurate/sloppy wording as to render unenforceable what are key provisions of U.S. Patent 7,095,126 B2, issued to Jesse McQueen on August 22, 2006, titled: "Internal energy generating power source".
Disclaimer Note: I am not a patent attorney, and the following analysis should in no way be construed as legal advice.
I am a professional regarding the topic of QMoGens, which is the subject of this patent. I've been studying and reporting on systems like this for the past 15 months.
Full Disclosure Statement: I have wanted to open source this technology (working with any IP holders), and recently received a set of instructions for building such a system.
In doing a search on the legal question of enforceability, the statement at IP-Watch.org seems to distill the essence of what is at stake here:
"Poorly-written claims can be hazardous to a patent's health."
Jesse said that the patent office said this was a "first of its kind" patent, and could be enlarged to embrace wider applications. He said his attorney said no one could even build a system without getting his permission (in the U.S.). He said the UN, who is working with him to bring this technology to market, has already shut down one group in California that was impinging on the patent.
Question 1: Is this patent worded poorly enough that it renders the patent unenforceable, at least as it pertains to the vast majority of QMoGens of which we are aware?
My overall impression is that whoever wrote this patent is a poor wordsmith, often writing one thing (motor) when the other (generator) should have been written, and vise versa. Jesse informed me that it was written by his patent attorney, so it's safe to conclude that his attorney was obviously not familiar with the information. And Jesse apparently assumed his attorney knew what he was doing, so Jesse didn't read it carefully and make the necessary corrections.
Furthermore, whoever the patent examiner was, it seems to me that they were either also extremely sloppy, or they didn't care, or they were accuracy-challenged, because they should have never approved the patent with the number of inaccuracies that are found in it, but should have insisted on corrections. But I don't know how things operate in the patent office, and what kind of editorial input the patent examiner is allowed to provide. It's hard for me to fathom that they valued this patent, to allow so many errors to remain in it when they approved it.
While this could be forgivable on a website or other documents; in a utility patent, where wording needs to be adequate to convey function sufficient for replication, I would think that such misstatements could invalidate the patent, at least key portions of it, making it effectively unenforceable.
Question 2: If so, then does this open up the possibility for someone else to lay claim to the IP through a properly-worded patent, or does it render the sector free of patent protection by anyone?
Here is the patent abstract exactly as it is worded:
An external power source such as a battery is used to initially supply power to start an alternator and generator. Once the system has started it is not necessary for the battery to supply power to the system. The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generator electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to the lamp load device and part back to the electric motor/generator. This power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter supplies power to the specific load devices that are connected to the system.
As a wordsmith, I can say that there are several very significant problems with the wording of this abstract, both in clarity and in accuracy. Here is a tracked version of how I would recommend rewording this, if I were Jesse's editor:
An external power source
such as a battery
is used to initially supply power to start an alternator
generator. Once the system has started
is not necessary for the battery
to supply power to the system .
can then be
disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generat or
electrical power. The alternator supplies this
electrical power to the
two inverters. One inverter outputs part
of its power to the
lamp load device and part back to the electric motor /generator.
power is used to power the electric motor. The second inverter
supplies power to
that are connected to the system.
To elaborate the problems, in order:
The claims are likewise very poorly worded.
Here is claim #1, with my numbering added, for easier reference:
1. A system for generating energy
such that a portion of the generated energy supplies power to the system that
generated the energy comprising:
1a. an electric motor capable of producing electric energy;
1b. a power source for supplying an initial amount of power to said electric motor;
1c. an alternator power source connected to said initial power source and said electric motor for continuously supplying power to said electric motor;
1d. a first inverter system connected to said electric motor,
1e. said inverter having an input through which said inverter system receives energy produced by said electric motor,
1f. said first inverter system also having one output through which said first inventor supplies power back to said electric motor to supply said electric motor with power;
1g. a load connected to said first inverter system via an inverter system output to alter the electric current traveling from said first inverter system such that the current feeding into the electric motor 30 is not purely inductive.
1a. ("an electric motor capable of producing electric
energy;") is a misstatement of terms. I would guess that it could possibly
be a fatal misstatement that
would cause this provision to be unenforceable.
Electric motors by design receive electrical input, whether AC or DC and turn
that into rotational torque. It is true that many motors can operate in reverse:
you turn the shaft, and that produces electricity in what usually are input
electrical terminals. However, in this application, per the drawings and other
descriptions, including 1b, and including the abstract, the purpose of the
electric motor is to receive electrical input from a battery or other
electrical input power, and to supply rotational torque, which is used to turn the
alternator or generator.
1c. ("an alternator power source connected to said initial power source and said electric motor for continuously supplying power to said electric motor;") is weak in that there are two major concepts that should be separated, and by combining them as they are here, it makes it sound like both functions happen concurrently; whereas in actuality, the system either runs in external power mode or self-looped mode; not both at the same time. 1c describes both modalities at the same time, as if they were concurrent. I'm guessing that 1c is therefore probably also unenforceable.
1e. ("said inverter having an input through which said inverter system receives energy produced by said electric motor,") is weak, possibly fatally weak, because, again, the word "electric motor" is used where "generator", or even better, "generator, driven by the motor" would have been accurate. In the configuration described in this patent, electric motors do not produce electricity. If they drive a generator or alternator, then the generator or alternator produces electricity, which could provide power to the inverter.
Claim #5 is the one that is likely to be the crucial one in terms of having relevance to some of the QMoGens. It states:
5. The system as described in claim 1 wherein said alternator, electric motor and first inverter from a loop wherein a portion of the generated power is recycled from said first inverter back to said electric motor.
Note that "from a loop" was most likely intended
to read "form a loop". It's a crucial typo. However, a liberal
interpretation would probably say that the balance of the sentence gives enough
context to still convey the meaning as intended.
Fortunately, for most QMoGen scenarios, they don't utilize an inverter as described here, so they would not fall under this claim.
Note that none of the claims describe a broad interpretation as was described in the abstract: "An external power source", but the claims describe only one potentially "external" power source: a battery.
Most of the QMoGens of which I'm aware use grid or "mains" power from the facility in which they reside as their start-up power source before being switched to self-looping mode.
I was hoping someone could figure out how to get a battery bank to start up the system, and then be recharged by the system, so the system could be completely independent of the grid. If Jesse's patent were well written, then it would require that anyone building such a system work in concert with him as the patent holder, if they are under the patent regional jurisdictions (US and Australia so far).
I received the following suggested wording from someone in the legal professions, who, for obvious reasons, can't be identified by name.
As a layperson and a free energy advocate, I think the granting of a patent to Jesse should encourage others to experiment and innovate in this area. It proves that there are exceptions to the general trend in the US patent office against such devices.
Nor should Jesse's implied claim to ownership of this entire QMoGen arena discourage people from replicating, experimenting and innovating. In fact, it should do just the opposite. If the technology proves viable, there will be plenty of money to be made, and Jesse may have a claim to a piece of the pie, but we are a long way from there. Build it, refine it, and if it works, let the patent attorneys and the courts figure out who gets what.
IMHO though, Jesse's implication that he is somehow the gatekeeper of this motor genre is akin to Edison claiming ownership of your cell phone because of a claimed patent on the telegraph.
After posting this story in our news, I called Jesse, and getting his answering machine, left the following message (mp3). 4:30 pm
|From: Patrick Kelly
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:38 AM [Mountain]
Subject: Jesse McQueen
I have just seen (most of) your interview video with Jesse McQueen (due to internet access problems) and I must congratulate you on your comments.
It might be worth pointing out that as John Bedini open-sourced a design of that type in 1984 (if I remember the date correctly) that the McQueen patent is void, John having provided "prior art" covering the principle. Also, Mr Wilson built and disclosed a similar system some 16 years prior to McQueen's 2006 application.
I should like to remark that a professional Patent Attorney has stated categorically to me that he has never seen any free-energy patent which could not easily be set aside in court due to failing to make proper disclosure and/or the Claims being written in an inadequate manner.
In passing, it might be remarked that since copyright and patent cases are not heard in a Criminal Court, that they are just part of the NWO razzle-dazzle scam system, although, manufacturing might have to be carried out using 'Sole Trader' status rather than a strawman 'Limited Company' in order to be able to brush off any attempts to halt manufacturing. 'Sole Trader' is a person and a person is not subject to the regulations of the private society (the "Law Society") for its members, unless he chooses to be bound by them, and a simple statement to that effect in court is sufficient to demonstrate that the de facto court has no jurisdiction (I have done that).
It is my understanding that anyone can construct a design shown in a patent, but not "legally" manufacture and sell without the consent of the patent holder. I am fairly sure that Jesse is quite wrong in his understanding, although that patent junk is irrelevant anyway.
An opinion was expressed in the EVGRAY forum a long time ago, that the McQueen patent was probably an opposition-created document intended to block designs of that type. That view may well be correct.
Congratulations on your excellent site and continuous efforts to promote free-energy - great work !!
All the best,
# # #
Resources at PESWiki.com
|Page composed by Sterling
Last updated January 10, 2014