Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by chrismb »

hanelyp wrote: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.
This is called 'enablement' in the USPTO's (and most english speaking IPO's) lingo.

If a patent application is rejected for lack of enablement and the decision is appealed, the USPTO can allow/request for a practical demonstration. Apparently they have done this on occasions. There don't appear to be any records showing to which applications this has been applied, or whether any were ever pursued and had a successful outcome.
hanelyp wrote:There also used to be a requirement that the claimed invention had actually been implemented.
Not exactly. There used to be a requirement in the US that a patent had to be accompanied by some form of physical model demonstrating the patent. This was dropped in 1880's by USPTO, in actual fact for the simple reason that the USPTO got fed up with receiving so many models!! Some inventors carried on sending in models well into the 20th century, but it was not required.

This is called 'reduction to practice' and does not appear to have ever been an actual requirement, only that sufficient evidence exists, based on logical arguments founded on current established knowledge, that a reduction to practice is practical.

In some jurisdictions, there is a requirement for reduction to practice for an issued patent to continue to be in force. Italy appears to be one such country. So, for example, for Rossi's Italian patent (the only on he has for his nickel tube thing) his application would have received a very cursory examination and then granted, but the flip-side of that is that he has two years to start selling a working product else he may lose his patent rights. This seems like a pretty good system, actually, because it combines a fairly liberal and easy-to-get-hold-of patent, but at the same time forces the inventor not to sit on the idea and wait for someone else to do the hard work and then sue them retrospectively, for example. The probability of Rossi holding on to an enforceable Italian patent for more than a few more months is therefore somewhere between zero and very very slim, all things considered so far.

There is also another requirement with the effect that a patent need not be fully enabled providing it, evidently, does not need an 'excess' of experimentation to get it going. Anything that requires 'undue experimentation' is not permitted. Patents are, obviously, expected to be at the cutting edge of their field so some device that needs intensive and meticulous tweaking can still be patented, even if it is obvious that it's not wholly practicable until improvements in not needing so much tweaking is found, but it's still OK as a patent as it is, essentially albeit problematically, enabled.

Most patents, like this Rossi thing and the other one mentioned here lack something else that is needed to be a meritable patent. They are also 'inspecific'. It's easy to spot, and will always fail a patent. Something like 'powder in a long tube'. The examiner will immediately ask 'how long'? Or 'this will get very hot'. Stuff like that is a flat fail.

One can bet good money that these types of patent applications almost always end up rejected for lacking enablement, requiring undue experimentation and being inspecific.

One other thing that affects patent applications in fusion at the moment is practicability. A patent must be 'practicable' and show a 'utility'. A patent application for a device that merely 'does fusion' would not actually be patentable. It would have to show how that process produces something useful, usually heat or neutrons. General Fusion's patents have been failing on 'utility' recently because the USPTO has argued that compressing a magnetic plasma achieves nothing useful (as there is no evidence to suppose it will produce useful excess heat, for example). That being said, a recent appeal was successful against examiners rejections on the basis of a lack of utility in relation to a "3He fusion device with direct electrical conversion". The Board of Appeals essentially ruled that a fusion device built for a research purpose alone had a utility, namely fusion research. Research is a utility for research? hmmm... maybe the Board of Appeals didn't get that right, but still it means fusion related patents are less likely to be rejected on 'utility' now.

(One might suppose that 'Research' itself is now regarded as an 'end' rather than a 'means'. It is not unexpected - gravy trains serve their own purposes.)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by KitemanSA »

hanelyp wrote:
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.
Not quite. Only that it must be a new concept. So if a well known process is proposed for a new end, that process need not have been used for that new end, but it must be apparent that it would work to that new end. It may be the difference between a method patent and a device patent. Just a guess.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by chrismb »

Image



Image

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by ladajo »

Roll out the Signature Comparisons...

I think ShutDownRossi got on that bus a while back. The obvoiusly not same person "Andrea Rossi" signatures.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by ladajo »

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by chrismb »

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by Skipjack »

I am sure the Rossibots will rationalize this with some sort of conspiracy against LENR.

Ivy Matt
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 6:43 am

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by Ivy Matt »

It was only a matter of time. I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Vaughn and Darden on their acquisition of the E-Cat technology. :D
Temperature, density, confinement time: pick any two.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by KitemanSA »

Skipjack wrote:I am sure the Rossibots will rationalize this with some sort of conspiracy against LENR.
Nope. Just the result of setting plasma physics people to examine a solid state application. Much like having the first airplane patent rejected because the steam locomotive examiner couldn't figure out how the wings got the unit to roll down the track.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by ladajo »

Obviously, the bit about if it was so easy it would be happening all over in nature escapes you.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by KitemanSA »

ladajo wrote:Obviously, the bit about if it was so easy it would be happening all over in nature escapes you.
And you know there are properly configured nanomateials with the proper dopants and the proper stimulating fields abundant in nature HOW? Seems obvious that micro-electronics can't work either since there are no natural integrated circuits. |rolls eyes|

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.

Post by ladajo »

Predicated on your rock solid conviction that Rossi is working with Nanomaterials.

I must have missed that in the patent.

Grinding stuff with a rock does not count as nanomaterial. If it did, my daily morning coffee could claim that fame.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Post Reply