FRC/electrostatic patents have run off the rails!

[chrismb]

I have done some digging on the USPTO website and note there is a sequence of 3 recent patents for this FRC-electrostatic idea.

The first patent, US7180242 (Formation of a field reversed configuration for magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma - 02/20/2007) went to Art Group 2821 (Discharge Devices). It was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of earlier Rostoker patents, but the claims were modified and the examiner, Trinh Vo Dinh, let it through.

The second patent, US7439678 (Magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma with tuning of electrostatic field - 10/21/2008) went to Art Group 2821 again. Again it was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of this and the earlier Rostoker patents, but the claims were modified and the examiner, Trinh Vo Dinh, let it through.

The latest patent application, US20080063133 (Formation of a field reversed configuration for magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma - 03/13/2008). It was given to Art Group 3663 (Nuclear Energy devices). It was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of earlier Rostoker patents. The claims were modified and arguments made, but the examiner, Vadim Dudnikov, was thoroughly unimpressed by the reply, sent an even longer "Final Rejection" response, and the applicants have dropped the application.

Vadim Dudnikov was the guy who rejected Bussard's last patent.

There is what I would describe as a tedium of bluntness in his rejections as well. (I rather think the Art Group 2821 guys are more laid back about patents, then, than in 3663.) For example, Vadim Dudnikov's first comment is "The abstract is objected to because the abstract states "ions and electrons may have adequate density and temperature so that upon collisions they are fused together by nuclear force" although this is clearly incorrect, because nuclear fusion involves the fusion of (2) nuclei." Now, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, including the prior examiners, but this guy is clearly not going to take this stuff and let it through.

His "Final Rejection" of 13th November 2008, which is the latest on these sequence of patents, reads "Applicant's arguments and remarks...with respect to of said previous Office action and other documents have been fully considered but they are not in every respect persuasive."

[D Tibbets]

I have done some digging on the USPTO website and note there is a sequence of 3 recent patents for this FRC-electrostatic idea.

The first patent, US7180242 (Formation of a field reversed configuration for magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma - 02/20/2007) went to Art Group 2821 (Discharge Devices). It was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of earlier Rostoker patents, but the claims were modified and the examiner, Trinh Vo Dinh, let it through.

The second patent, US7439678 (Magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma with tuning of electrostatic field - 10/21/2008) went to Art Group 2821 again. Again it was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of this and the earlier Rostoker patents, but the claims were modified and the examiner, Trinh Vo Dinh, let it through.

The latest patent application, US20080063133 (Formation of a field reversed configuration for magnetic and electrostatic confinement of plasma - 03/13/2008). It was given to Art Group 3663 (Nuclear Energy devices). It was given a non-final rejection because it was basically a crib of earlier Rostoker patents. The claims were modified and arguments made, but the examiner, Vadim Dudnikov, was thoroughly unimpressed by the reply, sent an even longer "Final Rejection" response, and the applicants have dropped the application.

Vadim Dudnikov was the guy who rejected Bussard's last patent.

There is what I would describe as a tedium of bluntness in his rejections as well. (I rather think the Art Group 2821 guys are more laid back about patents, then, than in 3663.) For example, Vadim Dudnikov's first comment is "The abstract is objected to because the abstract states "ions and electrons may have adequate density and temperature so that upon collisions they are fused together by nuclear force" although this is clearly incorrect, because nuclear fusion involves the fusion of (2) nuclei." Now, I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, including the prior examiners, but this guy is clearly not going to take this stuff and let it through.

His "Final Rejection" of 13th November 2008, which is the latest on these sequence of patents, reads "Applicant's arguments and remarks...with respect to of said previous Office action and other documents have been fully considered but they are not in every respect persuasive."

This is drifting into patent talk again, but I can't resist.
While Vadim Dudnikov's comment may be correct in this context, I believe fusion reactions are not always due to reactions only between nuclei. How about beta bombardment, or gamma ray bombardment transmutations? Can a free neutron be considered as a nuclei?...

Dan Tibbets

[chrismb]

I would consider this to be a much more significant outcome than just a patent issue.

On your point, Dan, this was conceded by the applicants and corrected.

But more significantly is that Dudnikov raised previous work by Wessel as anticipating this 'electrostatic' variant on FRCs, and so disallowed the application also because of this prior art of Wessel's.

A little more digging shows this chap, Wessel, has worked with Rostoker et al variously in the last decade, sitting on the same confereces together. Yet no patents appear to have ever been attributed to Wessel as one of the inventors.

Now that Wessel's contribution has been regarded as prior art in nuclear fusion energy, preventing the patenting of an electrostatic-FRC, and also that no patent carries his name as an inventor, then the electrostatic-FRC is no longer patentable, which means if someone takes it through to a working machine and it all works out, then there is no IPR protection. And no IPR protection should mean for some very scared investors.

Just think of this; the prior patents went through an Art Group looking at this device as a 'plasma forming' invention. OK, so what. This time it has gone through as a 'nuclear energy' invention, and it has been flatly rejected.

[TallDave]

I don't blame them for trying, but I doubt the patent stuff matters much. A working fusion machine like PW or FRC envision is not going to be protectable with IP laws for the same reason Eli Whitney's machine wasn't: it's just too darn useful. The thing will instantly become a political football and every sovereign country will claim the right to make their own, either for The People, The Country, or The Prophet.

The initial investors should recoup their investment plus a giant return in licensing in their home country, but when you can buy Windows 7 on a Beijing streetcorner for a buck you can forget protecting a working fusion reactor design in the international market.

Rick made it clear a ways back the Navy sponsors realize if PW works they won't be able to keep it, which is why the patent expirations raised zero concern.

[chrismb]

The thing will instantly become a political football and every sovereign country will claim the right to make their own, either for The People, The Country, or The Prophet.

I agree. In fact, I more than agree. But to seek investment must imply some chance of making money out of it. The Navy may not be concerened about the use of the taxpayers money if it goes on to benefit society, which it surely would if it had a hope of working. But if someone uses their own money then it sure as heck is a concern of theirs!

I think there is a very positive outcome for only patenting in your home country and maybe a couple of other wealthy ones; whilst the idea can be exploited in other countries, so they will develop it. You simply have to sit back and licence imports of their builds of the thing. The difference with windows sold on a street corner in China is, simply, that it is likely to be a lot easier to spot someone coming into the country with an illegal import of a fusion reactor than a CD with software on it!! Unfortunately, looks like FRC/electrostatic is no longer a viably protect-able thing in the US either.

[Skipjack]

I would say that even when the design is known, there are still many other factors that make a working reactor. At least in the beginning, they (whoever gets it first) will make tons of money, for building the initial reactors everywhere and maybe even teaching people how to do it right.
That is at least my thinking.

[icarus]

Rick made it clear a ways back the Navy sponsors realize if PW works they won't be able to keep it,

Hmm, by this logic, the more secretive Navy sponsors get with PW intellectual property, the less likely it is that things are working well at EMC2?

(To get ahead of the expected tirade of anguish, I'm just musing, not wanting to incur wrath of PW cult ... keep your pants on.)

[Giorgio]

Not really, things might work very well at EMC2, so well infact that we might never hear about any EMC2 advancement for the coming years. Or at least until US Navy will not consider anymore this technology as strategic.

[MSimon]

Not really, things might work very well at EMC2, so well infact that we might never hear about any EMC2 advancement for the coming years. Or at least until US Navy will not consider anymore this technology as strategic.

I do think the Navy might want a head start. But as soon as one is installed on a ship the genie is out of the bottle.

OTOH an announcement might have an effect on geopolitics sufficient to warrant an announcement.

[ltgbrown]

OTOH an announcement might have an effect on geopolitics sufficient to warrant an announcement.

Think of the leverage we would have over Iran. "If your reactors are truly for power, then we will give you these fusion reactors if you will allow the inspectors to come in and monitor your dismanteling of the reactors and enrichment apparatus. In addition, Brazil and Turkey (if you want to play with the big boys, you gotta pay) will provide all the radioactive isotopes you need for medical purposes."

At least N. K. doesn't quibble over what their reactors are for.

[TallDave]

Rick made it clear a ways back the Navy sponsors realize if PW works they won't be able to keep it,

Hmm, by this logic, the more secretive Navy sponsors get with PW intellectual property, the less likely it is that things are working well at EMC2?

(To get ahead of the expected tirade of anguish, I'm just musing, not wanting to incur wrath of PW cult ... keep your pants on.)

FOIA and paranoia notwithstanding, Rick has already told us why they're being quiet: they don't want a repeat of the cold fusion PR debacle, where Pons and Fleischman were probably onto something but overplayed their hand badly.

If one were so inclined, one could therefore interpret secrecy to mean the results are sufficiently promising that they are worried people will over-interpret them. Or they may just not want to fend off attacks from DOE and the careerist tokamak crowd. The thing about unknowns is you can read just about anything into them.

I suspect the results are what Rick predicted: roughly in line with expectations, but not earth-shattering. We'll just have to see what gets picked up re WB-8 and WB-9. Obviously if they start building a $100M reactor then it's very likely WB-8 went well. If they don't pick up WB-8.1 then it's likely the results were disappointing.

[TallDave]

I think there is a very positive outcome for only patenting in your home country and maybe a couple of other wealthy ones; whilst the idea can be exploited in other countries, so they will develop it.

I'm very skeptical fusion reactor intellectual property rights will be respected even in the U.S. or U.K.. Utilities are already quasi-gov't corporations as it is. If they can get a prototype fusion reactor up and running that looks commercially doable, any license fees will probably be set by fiat -- just like electric rates.

[Munchausen]

If someone comes up with a working shortcut to commercial fusion power: Assuming there are defendable intellectual rights on it, wouldn't it be a good strategy to use the taxpayers money to buy him out and make the technology available to everyone?

It's like working with a bad set of tools: Sooner or later you end up paying for good ones. Meanwhile you have spent a lot of effort working with crap.

[GIThruster]

No, IMHO that would not be a good strategy. All evidence is that the best way to disseminate technology through culture is through private enterprise. Whenever governments get involved they muck it up. The only exception should be when that technology forms a defense issue and therefore has to be controlled in the name of national defense. In this instance alone, law exists to "take" the technology by classifying it and refusing or removing the patent, and then hands it to private industry whom they feel they can work with under the proper security measures. In this instance USG is supposed to compensate the owner of the tech at fair market value but in practice, this never happens.

Here in the US, USG does not have the legal right to interfere for any reasons other than national defense, nor should they.

[icarus]

they don't want a repeat of the cold fusion PR debacle,

Well I think it is safe to say that is never gonna happen with PW, (always thought this was just a BS argument for suppressing info besides.)

Can you really envision a frenzied media conference with cameras flashing on a beaming Rick 'nuancing the neutrons' counts? Ah-hem.

I think odds are they want to look into the technology, to be seen to be doing so, but would rather it failed quietly than with a bang.