Features
•
Ayahuasca -- remedy for depression, addiction, trauma illnesses
• TWIFE™: July 3, 2014; Featuring Dave Parker of FreeEnergyParty.org
• New 3rd-party test results on SHT show over 1000x overunity
• Resurrecting Oleg Gritskevich's Hydromagnetic Dynamo
• Best Hydroxy Technologies
• Ultraconductors Resurfacing
• World's first commercial-scale ocean pasture restoration
• TWIFE™: June 26, 2014; Featuring Martin Burger of Blue Energy Alchemy
• William F. Skinner's 1939 Gravity Motor



 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe

 

Directory
Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

Resources
• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

Mingling
• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

Shopping
• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact

 

 

 


http://pesn.com/2013/12/11/9602406_Poorly-Worded-US-QMoGen-Patent-7095126_May-Not-Be-Enforceable/
You are here:
PureEnergySystems.com > News > December 11, 2013; 4:15 pm Mountain

PART 3 OF 3 
Thesis: Poorly-worded US QMoGen patent 7,095,126 may make it difficult to enforce

I am not a patent attorney, but in looking at the very poorly worded patent of Jesse McQueen's QMoGen (my term, not his), it seems to me that he would have a hard time enforcing his patent. For example, several times it says "generator" when it should say "motor", and vice versa.

See also:
- 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?


Making the Case

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 a motor that turns an alternator and or generator (hereafter "alternator"). Once the system has started, it is not necessary for the battery external power source is no longer needed to supply power to the system but can . The battery can then be disconnected. The alternator and electric motor work in combination to generateor electrical power. The alternator supplies this electrical power to the two inverters. One inverter outputs part of its power to run 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 usable power to for the specific loads devices that are connected to the system.

To elaborate the problems, in order:

  • The first sentence is a technical impossibility. Generators and Alternators are not powered by electricity. Rather, they convert rotational torque into electricity. It is true that some generators can run in the reverse scenario: provide them with electricity through what is supposed to be their output, and they produce torque in their shaft. But this is not the application in this scenario. Based on my understanding, "motor and generator" would have been accurate, instead of "alternator and generator".
  • The second sentence only mentions "battery" as the external power source, narrowing the range of possible inputs, such as grid power, to bring the system up to speed. Nearly all of the QMoGens I am aware of use grid power to come up to speed.
  • In the fourth sentence, "generator" should be "generate." One is a noun, the other is a verb. The usage of this word in the sentence calls for a verb, not a noun. This is a blatant grammatical error that accentuates the high level of slop and lack of skill that went into composing and editing this abstract, and probably the entire patent. This sentence, if it were properly worded, happens to be the crux of the patent, which covers all the nearly 40 QMoGens I've been made aware of, from 15 countries.

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).


Take-Home Lessons

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.


Voice Message to Jesse

After posting this story in our news, I called Jesse, and getting his answering machine, left the following message (mp3). 4:30 pm


Patrick Kelly Chimes in

From: Patrick Kelly 
To: sterlingda
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:38 AM [Mountain]
Subject: Jesse McQueen



Hi Sterling,

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,

Patrick

# # #

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Click to Tweet: http://ctt.ec/741cM 
  4. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  5. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  6. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

PES Coverage of McQueen Machine

  • Thesis: Poorly Worded US QMoGen Patent 7,095,126 may not be Enforceable? - I am not a patent attorney, but in looking at the very poorly worded patent of Jesse McQueen's QMoGen (my term, not his), it seems to me that he would have a hard time defending his patent. For example, several times it says "generator" when it should say "motor", and vice versa. (PESN; December 11, 2013)
  • Interview with QMoGen Patent Holder, Jesse McQueen - Texas inventor says he's working w/ UN to bring the technology to market and get world patent protection, and they say he deserves a Nobel Prize; says the energy comes from the same positive charges seen manifest in a thunderstorm. While it looks simple, it is not. Says people shouldn't even build one without first getting his permission. (PESN; December 11, 2013)
  • Found: QMoGen US Patent Awarded - The invention involves a generator head, motor, gear box, and belts. "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." (PESN; December 7, 2013)
  • McQueen Machine -Revolutionary Energy Generating Machine - The patented McQueen Machine is a new "Internal Energy Generating Power Source" that uses positive electrical charges from the atmosphere to generate power. It is claimed to generate more energy than is required to operate the machine. (PESWiki; July 24, 2008)

See also

Resources at PESWiki.com

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan
Last updated January 10, 2014
 
 

Bestsellers

 

NOTE: We are presently moderating all comments, to keep out the crass negativity, flaming, and other inappropriate forms of criticism. We welcome constructive criticism tactfully stated. Frequent offenders will be blacklisted.

"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right."
-- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing • PowerPedia

PESN.com
Copyright © 2002-2014, PES Network Inc.