The principles of physics and nature teach that a machine cannot produce more energy than it absorbs. So, it poses a significant barrier to securing a patent for a perpetual motion machine. As and when it is claimed, the Patent and Trademark Office of any country usually rejects it. The Patent Office's denial of a claim that mentions a machine that can produce more energy than it uses is a thorough rejection. The apparent dismissal is based on the assumption that an invention cannot have recognition unless it works perfectly.

But why do developers require legal protection for perpetual motion machines that science proclaims to be impossible? Why is it necessary to have a law governing a perpetual motion machine?

First, it is important to note that impossibility rejections were made in the past for previously deemed impossible technologies. However, it later proved to be viable. In the utility scenario, an investigator would reject a claim, leaving the applicant with the burden of proving that the discovery worked. In most cases, where the original rejection was due to impossibility, the smooth operation would be expected due to uniqueness and ease of understanding. The Patent Office will only issue a patent for a technology that can create more energy than it uses if a working prototype is produced. The prototype will be rigorously examined. If the output exceeds the input, the applicant may proceed with the patent formalities.