Page 3 of 4
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:40 am
by Asterix
"... from the Licences and Review Department..."
This tidbit comes from the US Patent and Trademark Office?
In the USA, we spell it "Licenses", not the UK (mis-) spelling. Is the USPTO too poor to afford spell checking on their computer systems?
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:43 am
by chrismb
Both sides of the Atlantic traditionally misspell something when it comes to licensing and licences, but everyone seems to join in with the charade.
An authority licenses a licence. s = verb, c = noun.
(Like 'advise' and 'advice'. Americans can misspell things as they wish, but they still give 'advice' [noun] rather than give 'advise'.)
Yes, one way or another, the person above spelt it wrong;
http://www.uspto.gov/faq/faqs_lr.jsp , even by their own standards.
The person's spell checker did not appear to be 'availble' [sic].
In the case of chrismb's patent applications with the USPTO, they made an administrative mess of those too, so they are far from immune and their 'righteous indignation' at folks mis-jumping certain administrative hurdles they create is very hypocritical at times.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:31 am
by ladajo
Looks like Rossi chose the wrong words in his application.
USPTO has flagged it for external agency review by Defence Science and Technology Agency. Silly boy must have used either or both of the words "nuclear" & "radiation". This will probably end up looking like Florida BRC all over again. They may even flag him for False Official Statements if they compare and do not like what is in the Patent verses what he told Florida BRC, who was acting on the behalf of the NRC.
<munch...munch,munch>
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:55 am
by chrismb
chrismb's last patent also had all such terms in. It also claimed, directly in the abstract, it was a means for isotopic separation (one of the stated things that pop up the 'security flags'), yet it didn't get a sniff of interest with Licensing and Securities.
Maybe the difference is that Rossi is a convicted fraudster and it was less to do with technology issues and more to do with fraud issues? After all, most patents that cover such topics don't get picked up like this. But they are, or at least look like, something from bona fide research, whereas Rossi's patent application has 'scam' written all over it.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:26 pm
by chrismb
Current EP status:
INPADOC legal status: EP2259998 (A1) ― 2010-12-15
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
The EPO does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of data and information originating from other authorities than the EPO; in particular, the EPO does not guarantee that they are complete, up-to-date or fit for specific purposes.
Legal status of EP2259998 (A1) 2010-12-15:
EP F 08873805 A (Patent of invention)
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : 17P
Code Expl.: + REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION FILED
EFFECTIVE DATE : 20100916
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : AK
Code Expl.: + DESIGNATED CONTRACTING STATES:
KD OF CORRESP. PAT. : A1
DESIGNATED COUNTR. : AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : AX
Code Expl.: + EXTENSION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT TO
CONCERNED COUNTRIES : AL BA MK RS
PRS Date : 2011/07/13
PRS Code : DAX
Code Expl.: EXTENSION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT TO (DELETED)
PRS Date : 2012/03/14
PRS Code : RAP1
Code Expl.: TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF AN EP APPLICATION
NEW OWNER : LEONARDO CORPORATION
PRS Date : 2012/11/21
PRS Code : 17Q
Code Expl.: + FIRST EXAMINATION REPORT
EFFECTIVE DATE : 20121019
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:52 am
by Asterix
Chris, you seem to be the expert here. What do you make of
this application? Given the lack of detail, it's sure to be rejected. So what's the point in filing?
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:56 am
by MSimon
All things considered I'm sceptical.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:58 am
by MSimon
Asterix wrote:Chris, you seem to be the expert here. What do you make of
this application? Given the lack of detail, it's sure to be rejected. So what's the point in filing?
Keep the charade going. There is a sucker born every minute and some of them were born yesterday.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:15 pm
by Asterix
I view it as an extortion issue--get Rossi or his licensees to pony up some hard cash to get the application dropped--cheaper than suing.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:06 pm
by chrismb
FWIW:
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:13 pm
by chrismb
Asterix wrote:Chris, you seem to be the expert here. What do you make of
this application? Given the lack of detail, it's sure to be rejected. So what's the point in filing?
It's hopeless.
Every one-bit dreamer with a half-baked idea wants to throw it towards USPTO in the hope they will strike it lucky and incant some magic words so posterity will see them as oh-so-prescient.
If the guy actually builds something and takes some measurements, then he overcomes that critique. If he does, all strength to him. At least, one might then say, 'he tried'.
But his 'invention' is but a dream in his own fantasy world, and his patent application is so doomed that he has failed to even perform the initial steps of filing his patent correctly, let alone file material that stands any chance of passing the grade.
What is his motivation for spending money on such a venture? It can only, therefore, be a vanity, a fantasy and/or a delusionary impulse.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:15 pm
by chrismb
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:47 pm
by ScottL
So I'm interpretting this as he has ~75 (I guess 72 now) days to formally state how all this works, why it works, with corresponding numbers to back it up. IE: all the secrets must be divulged? Asking for clarification.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:51 am
by ladajo
Giggle. I wonder what Rossi will say about this? It will be really fun when someone trots his statements to BRC in front of this.
"Its nuclear, Its not nuclear. I swear."
Just like his UL certification. Another poor attempt to play with fire beyond his ken.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:49 pm
by hanelyp
ScottL wrote:So I'm interpretting this as he has ~75 (I guess 72 now) days to formally state how all this works, why it works, with corresponding numbers to back it up. IE: all the secrets must be divulged? Asking for clarification.
The way patents are supposed to work, a standard apparently not well upheld these days, the patent application must include sufficient detail for a practitioner of the art to implement. There also used to be a requirement that the claimed invention had actually been implemented.
