The question is: Will it be granted the way it is written?ddanimal wrote:The patent is crap.
I am a patent agent with 12 years experience. I read the Rossi/Focardi patent and I say its garbage-its poorly written, poorly enabled and claims are a mess.
Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Re: Rossi patent
[This is a copy of a post in another thread. This is just to keep this one live.]
However, if such a powder can be used to liberate energy in other ways, then his patent is weak because one would merely have to use it in that other way to avoid infringement.
So essentially this patent is relying on the fact that Rossi's secret pixie powder cannot be used in any other way, other than inside a metal tube (which, seeing as he has admitted he doesn't really know why it works, is not only a risk too far, but probably makes it contestable).
In terms of opinion as to method or material, in this case I do not think any IP specialist would hesitate in saying that it is the pixie powder that is the substance to patent. Merely patenting the material would ensure it could then not be used in any other configuration, which seems an enormously more powerful patent.
I could offer more useful advice if I were paid enough. For example, if he knows enough about his invention then he could probably pick a specific aspect of the process and patent that, rather than either the apparatus or the material.
That is, he's patented apparatus, he could've patented material [but not in all jurisdictions] but he could've avoided giving away his secret sauce by, for example, patenting the control of the catalytic reaction. viz. he's said that he can control the rate of the reaction by controlling the heat input. So, what he could [still, perhaps] patent is 'a method in which means are provided to deliver external heat to a hydrogen-nickel reactor thereby controlling its exothermal energy output'. There y'go - no mention of fusion reactions, no special sauce, and fully enabled because anyone can do those steps.
In a patent, sometimes it is better to pick an unusual, but necessary, process feature. If you patent one necessary part of a process, the whole process is effectively patented. Even better, others might then improve other parts of the process, and be motivated to do so themselves by getting their own patents on the other parts of it. Then you work together and everyone makes money who has contributed.
A good example is the Wright Bros, who patented the flight control but not the aeroplane. A bad example is Boulton and Watt who cornered the steam engine market and suffocated innovation for a couple of decades. {IIRC: Once their patent [which they had managed to persuade Parliament to extend] expired, the innovation on steam engines exploded and power and efficiency, that had been stagnant under their licencing, trebled within a decade. see http://mises.org/daily/3280 }
If the only way to take advantage of a [any] nickel cataytic material is to "inject hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment" then his patent is solid.Axil wrote:I humbly ask the experts in patent law that frequent this thread to share their judgment about the intellectual property protection afforded a “method” of catalytic activity that is provided as opposed to the catalyst as a “material”.
However, if such a powder can be used to liberate energy in other ways, then his patent is weak because one would merely have to use it in that other way to avoid infringement.
So essentially this patent is relying on the fact that Rossi's secret pixie powder cannot be used in any other way, other than inside a metal tube (which, seeing as he has admitted he doesn't really know why it works, is not only a risk too far, but probably makes it contestable).
In terms of opinion as to method or material, in this case I do not think any IP specialist would hesitate in saying that it is the pixie powder that is the substance to patent. Merely patenting the material would ensure it could then not be used in any other configuration, which seems an enormously more powerful patent.
I could offer more useful advice if I were paid enough. For example, if he knows enough about his invention then he could probably pick a specific aspect of the process and patent that, rather than either the apparatus or the material.
That is, he's patented apparatus, he could've patented material [but not in all jurisdictions] but he could've avoided giving away his secret sauce by, for example, patenting the control of the catalytic reaction. viz. he's said that he can control the rate of the reaction by controlling the heat input. So, what he could [still, perhaps] patent is 'a method in which means are provided to deliver external heat to a hydrogen-nickel reactor thereby controlling its exothermal energy output'. There y'go - no mention of fusion reactions, no special sauce, and fully enabled because anyone can do those steps.
In a patent, sometimes it is better to pick an unusual, but necessary, process feature. If you patent one necessary part of a process, the whole process is effectively patented. Even better, others might then improve other parts of the process, and be motivated to do so themselves by getting their own patents on the other parts of it. Then you work together and everyone makes money who has contributed.
A good example is the Wright Bros, who patented the flight control but not the aeroplane. A bad example is Boulton and Watt who cornered the steam engine market and suffocated innovation for a couple of decades. {IIRC: Once their patent [which they had managed to persuade Parliament to extend] expired, the innovation on steam engines exploded and power and efficiency, that had been stagnant under their licencing, trebled within a decade. see http://mises.org/daily/3280 }
returning to the Wright Brother´s example, they suffocated the airplane industry in the US till the first world war!!!chrismb wrote: A good example is the Wright Bros, who patented the flight control but not the aeroplane. A bad example is Boulton and Watt who cornered the steam engine market and suffocated innovation for a couple of decades. {IIRC: Once their patent [which they had managed to persuade Parliament to extend] expired, the innovation on steam engines exploded and power and efficiency, that had been stagnant under their licencing, trebled within a decade. see http://mises.org/daily/3280 }
the Wright Brothers invented (and patented) wing warping to control the airplane.
Curtiss created an aircraft with ailerons and the Wrights sued him, even though the aircraft was controlled in a different way, meaning the Wrights patented a control system but effectively thought they had patented "manned flight".
That prompted Curtiss to say once "if a man as much as flaps his arms, the Wrights will sue him"
you probably has more info on this, but I was just surprised that you admire the way the Wrights patented their system and went on with legal battles on them, when most info around shows that the US air industry was suffocated by it and at the beginning of World War I had to rely on european airplanes EXACTLY because of it...AcesHigh wrote:returning to the Wright Brother´s example, they suffocated the airplane industry in the US till the first world war!!!chrismb wrote: A good example is the Wright Bros, who patented the flight control but not the aeroplane. A bad example is Boulton and Watt who cornered the steam engine market and suffocated innovation for a couple of decades. {IIRC: Once their patent [which they had managed to persuade Parliament to extend] expired, the innovation on steam engines exploded and power and efficiency, that had been stagnant under their licencing, trebled within a decade. see http://mises.org/daily/3280 }
the Wright Brothers invented (and patented) wing warping to control the airplane.
Curtiss created an aircraft with ailerons and the Wrights sued him, even though the aircraft was controlled in a different way, meaning the Wrights patented a control system but effectively thought they had patented "manned flight".
That prompted Curtiss to say once "if a man as much as flaps his arms, the Wrights will sue him"
Patents are there to earn the inventor some money, for a given period of time. That is the reward.AcesHigh wrote:most info around shows that the US air industry was suffocated by it ...
Like any institutionalised situation, the 'establishment' tried to dodge giving some little people any money. The industry was only 'stifled' because they refused to pay the piper.
The Boulton-Watt situation is completely different. I would be the first to praise Watt and say he should get paid for his invention, but he used his friend's influence in Parliament to actually pass a new Act to extend it.
Play the game and pay the inventor. No 'restrictions'. The US air industry restricted itself. They had no right to buy european planes, if those planes used 3 axis control.
Chris, have you seen this?
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/appl ... &npl=false
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/appl ... &npl=false
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Someone is taking Rossi patent application waaaay to seriously!! The patent application claims are so broad and easy to work around, it is difficult to see what issues are arising with it, even if it is in force.
Following email exchange with chrismb:
Following email exchange with chrismb:
From: chrismb
Sent: 3/10/2013 05:28:36 AM
To: EBC <EBC@USPTO.GOV>
Subject: No entry in public PAIR for application 12/736193 (publication 20110005506)
In reference to a PCT application, PCT/IT2008/000532, (US 12/736193) there is no available entry of it in the public PAIR, yet there is for the publication in the application image database.
Please let me know the meaning of this anomaly.
Sincerely,
&c..
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:35:46 -0400
> From: ebc@uspto.gov
> Subject: RE: No entry in public PAIR for application 12/736193 (publication 20110005506)
> To: chrismb
>
> Hello,
>
> The application is not availble for public inspection because it is pending a security review from the Licences and Review Department. When there is a secrecy coded inplemented on a case it will not be available through the Public Pair Site. If you require further assistance regarding the case you will need to contact the L & R Department at 571-272-8203.
>
> Thank you,
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Once a patent finds application at the Luna Farside Facility, or Titan Base, it automatically goes dark. Like Polywell.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
Polywell was simply rejected at the last attempt at USPTO, for lack of enablement. None of its applications have been subject to this.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
That's what you are supposed to believe.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
No. It is simply a statement of fact.DeltaV wrote:That's what you are supposed to believe.
It is possible to file a US patent that does not appear as a publication until it is examined, but this means there are various limitations on the patent, such as not filing it abroad. Or it is, obviously, also possible that patentable IP has been generated for which no patents have yet been applied for.
But of those polywell patent applications published, none have been implemented with a secrecy code. In the case of Rossi's patent application, it was published but is now subject to a secrecy code until the applicant submits some further information. It is not possible to tell if this was initiated by the USPTO or Rossi, for the obvious reason.
Re: Rossi USPTO patent progress.
... now cleared for public gawking again ...
12/736,193 METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTION
Transaction History
Date--------------Transaction Description
03-25-2013 ------Receipt of all Acknowledgement Letters
03-25-2013 ------Receipt of Acknowledgment Letter
03-08-2013 ------Agency Referral Letter Mailed
02-13-2013 ------Referred by L&R for Third-Level Security Review. Agency Referral Letter Generated
02-13-2013 ------Intentionally Referred by OIPE or L&R
02-13-2013 ------Intentionally Referred by OIPE or L&R
09-05-2012 ------Transfer Inquiry to GAU
09-04-2012 ------Transfer Inquiry to GAU
01-13-2011 ------PG-Pub Issue Notification
&c....