RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

European Patent Register: EP 1 446 862 (application 01988155.6) file wrapper (2026-10-05)

URLs: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP01988155&tab=main ; document list https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP01988155&lng=en&tab=doclist ; 2006 examination annex https://register.epo.org/application?documentId=EKYWU7IB7939FI4&number=EP01988155&lng=en&npl=false Queries: application number EP01988155 (from Google Patents).

Findings [web, register pages above]

  • Status: "No opposition filed within time limit" (nobody opposed the grant). Applicants of record for all designated states: the five inventors as individuals, all in Huntsville, AL (addresses on the register; not copied here). Represented by a London patent attorney firm.
  • The full file is public: 92 documents ("All documents (92)"), 2001-2014.
  • Prosecution timeline read from the document list: claims 1-26 filed 03.06.2004; amended description pages 1, 10, 16-20 and drawing sheets 2/5, 4/5, 5/5 filed with letter of 15.06.2005; Examining Division communication with annex 18.09.2006; replies 19-20.03.2007; second communication with annex 18.11.2008; time extensions 2009; "Application deemed to be withdrawn (no reply to communication from the Examining Division)" 02.07.2009; request for further processing with new claims and description 25/27.08.2009, granted 08.09.2009; representation changes Jan 2010; enquiries about delay 2011; "Communication about intention to grant" with "Text intended for grant" (33 pp.) 06.02.2012; deemed withdrawn again for missing translations/fees 20.07.2012, further processing allowed 17.10.2012; consultation by telephone/in person 05.04.2013; decision to grant 26.09.2013; certificate 25.10.2013; end of opposition period 27.08.2014.
  • 18.09.2006 annex (pages 1-3 read in the viewer; the viewer would not scroll past p.3 of 5): objections under Art. 84 EPC (three overlapping independent claims), and Art. 54 novelty: "E1 [US 4,006,401] discloses a motionless electromagnetic generator having the same structure as that claimed in present claims 1 and 16. The only difference ... is the fact that in E1 the power to drive the coils ... is derived directly from the output of a continuously applied alternately current source, and not from the permanent magnet". Art. 56 inventive step over D2 (US 4,883,977, electromagnet instead of permanent magnet) combined with D4 (FR 2,312,135, Galley 1975, "Dispositif statique générateur de courant électrique") or D6 (US 2,866,943). Prior-art list: E1 US 4,006,401; E2 US 4,077,001; D2 US 4,883,977; D4 FR 2,312,135; D6 US 2,866,943 (search report of 05.07.2002).
  • Pages 4-5 of that annex, the 18.11.2008 annex, the applicants' 2007 replies and the 2013 consultation minutes were NOT read (viewer stalled; time limit).

Bearing on the claims

  • Claim 5: the European examiner's 2006 objections, as far as read, were about clarity, novelty and inventive step against earlier flux-switching generators, not about energy conservation. The EPO granted only after the claim was limited to the non-saturating, output-fed-back version. Whether the EPO ever raised industrial applicability / perpetual motion (Art. 52/57 EPC), and what the applicants answered, is in the unread 2006 p.4-5, 2008 annex and 2007 replies. Contrast the US continuation (archive.org note), where the examiner rejected on 35 USC 101 for violating thermodynamics.
  • The prior art Galley FR 2,312,135 (1975) and Rivas US 4,006,401 (1977) are earlier "static generator" devices with the same flux-switching structure; related work (priority 3).

Not done

  • Remaining annex pages, applicant replies (19/20.03.2007, 25/27.08.2009 claims and description), 2013 minutes. These are the European "file wrapper" and the most direct record of how the applicants defended COP > 1 in Europe. Nothing downloaded (needs owner approval); "Zip Archive" of all documents is offered on the document list page.