Room-temperature superconductivity?

[chrismb]

After our PCT debacle I cannot comment any further. even if the answer might be no. Sorry. Maybe next year. There is even a possibility that I might come to the USA next year once the patent problems have been ironed out. That would be the time to discuss such issues.

I've not followed this thread, please excuse me if I am remiss in catching up on 36 pages, but I don't understand why the PCT stage would halt your efforts. It is merely a stepping-stone to national procedures, in which you would have to repeat any arguments anyway.

I have been busy monitoring patents a lot these days and the thing I have noticed is that highly technical patents are getting more difficult to frame in a way that embues the application with demonstrable 'utility'. This is hardly unexpected - the 'low-hanging fruit' of the tree of scientific discovery has been all but plucked clean. So now the technology for which patent protection is sought is going to always be 'unobvious'. But what I see is not that it is difficult to patent such materials, but instead that inventors do not know how to frame and focus the application on realistic implementations of their claims rather than falling into the trap of making forward-looking/hopeful speculations about their claims.

Sounds like you've got some strong claims to make, but that you've* not been able to put them in a 'patentable' way. You should file in specific countries that you want protection and learn from the responses of each on how to best formulate the specification.

*(seems to me that patent agents like to let things take ages to get straight!?)

[GIThruster]

Chris, that's all true but also remember that is generally costs about $10,000 to file for patent in the US. We have the largest markets for almost everything so US patent is the place to start, but it's ain't cheap. And BTW, it has always been the case that for US patent, the thing or method to be patented must be "unobvious". Might be this is where US and UK patent law differs, and who knows what things are like in South Africa?

Johan, understood. I'd still like to connect you with the resources necessary to have you treat a very large substrate, and if you can get your patent in line in the next few months, maybe we'll be able to see to that soon.

If your technology is what you say, it is a perfect enabling technology for future Mach Effect thrusters and force generators for reasons that I also cannot go into detail, except to state the obvious: being able to carry large currents in a room temperature superconductor for use in electric thrusters is obviously a win-win situation.

[chrismb]

Chris, that's all true but also remember that is generally costs about $10,000 to file for patent in the US.

For the US, it costs $435 for a small entity to file for a patent, a publication and request a search. This can be done on line, from anywhere in the world. On grant it is $700 fee and $350 for 'publication' costs.

The UK is even cheaper - £200, and that's all you pay through to grant.

I have no idea where your figure of $10k comes from. What are you talking about?

If Johan has already paid patent agents for the dubious privilege of helping him prepare a specification, then he'd need only file it. I have found US and UK examiners to be positively helpful in their comments, if you take them the right way.

[GIThruster]

Chris, you're right.

Normally, it costs about $10,000 to file for patent here in the US, but almost all of this is for writing and research. Since Johan already has his patent apps in order, or close enough that he can reapply around the world without huge investment, his costs should be minimal.

IMHO, he should apply for US patent ASAP so he can get on with the empirical trials sans concerns with things like NDA's. Most savvy investors will not sign an NDA, so this is where patent protection really comes to value.

[johanfprins]

Chris, you're right.

Normally, it costs about $10,000 to file for patent here in the US, but almost all of this is for writing and research. Since Johan already has his patent apps in order, or close enough that he can reapply around the world without huge investment, his costs should be minimal.

IMHO, he should apply for US patent ASAP so he can get on with the empirical trials sans concerns with things like NDA's. Most savvy investors will not sign an NDA, so this is where patent protection really comes to value.

Chris and GIThruster,

Firstly I am not in a position to answer all your questions since it might imperil the path I have to follow to get the protection that I require. I have the best patent attorneys in South Africa and will thus follow their advice strictly at this stage. They know that I do not have the finances to start filing worldwide and we are trying to follow a path where I will be protected when I look for partners with money.

My main problem is as follows: The patent examiners judge my results in terms of the mainstream understanding of superconduction which is wrong. They believe that you must show a drop in voltage when going through the critical temperature (which I agree is ann indication of superconduction but not yet incontestable proof) and then demonstrate the Meissner effect. And if you do not do prove these two aspects in your patent applications they reject the patent.

My critical temperatures are so high that the material physically changes long before I can reach it. Furthermore, the assumption that all superconductors MUST show a Meissner effect is based on wrong physics.
My arguments for superconduction are based on better reasons than any EVER given in ANY patent on superconduction but the examiners do not want to think outside the wrong mainstream ideas.

I am not willing to follow up on this discussion in an open forum until I have adequate protection. If I do not get it I will probably take the only method by which superconduction can be generated above room temperature with me to my grave: asking my children and grandchildren to publish it when and if another person in future comes to the same invention. If this happens in 50 years time the "superconductor physics church" will have to explain why they censored it for all this time.

[chrismb]

What are your criteria for demonstrating superconductivity, then? There is variation between the expectations of different countries, but on the whole explicit evidence isn't usually required providing that you can demonstrate 'on the balance of probabilities' that your invention will work. It sounds like you have met that criterion, so I am just concerned that you are expecting resistance to your ideas but that the examiners are simply saying 'these are the things we expect to see, what other ways are there to show superconductivity' because it is not for them to define that, it is for you to define it.

I still don't quite understand which examiners you are talking about, though. As I understood it, PCT inspections are only advisory and do not prohibit progression of the application to national stages, so your description of events suggests you're missing out something else you have done, like getting a 3rd party opinion.

It was not the tech I was asking after, merely the patent procedure itself. Patent examinations usually come after publication, because the process of examination should also take on board any comments, observations or objections made by the general public, on the application, and I can find no such publication. I was just trying to see if there is anything I could say about patent procedures that might help you. I am not suggesting your patent lawyers do not know how to handle the situation.... but not all patent lawyers know how to handle such situations! They are skilled in the state-of-the-law rather than state-of-the-art, so they are not always the best ones to prepare and write patent applications, particularly on aspect of cutting-edge science.

[johanfprins]

What are your criteria for demonstrating superconductivity, then? ......

I am sorry but I have too plead the fifth amendmend here.

I was just trying to see if there is anything I could say about patent procedures that might help you. I am not suggesting your patent lawyers do not know how to handle the situation.... but not all patent lawyers know how to handle such situations!

Thank you; I appreciate your efforts but I can assure you that all the issues you raised are known to us. The problem is the patent examiners who only act according to stupid little rules. When I try and write the patent in such a manner that I prove that the foundations on which they judge superconduction are wrong, they reject it on the grounds that I am trying to patent a theory. When I do not, they judge it in terms of mainstream dogma which is totally wrong. Catch 22.

I know PCT is just an opinion but it is strong indication of how other examiners will also think (as well as the "experts") who wrongly believe that theories like the Landau-Ginzberg one and the BCS one, are based on real physics. I am too old to fight off clever idiots all the time. I would like to spend my last days on earth not having to do the latter.

[chrismb]

What are your criteria for demonstrating superconductivity, then? ......

I am sorry but I have too plead the fifth amendmend here.

I'm not entirely clear what the issue with that question is. Surely the criteria you choose to set so as to demonstrate a finding/invention is not privilege information?

Excuse me if I sound rough but it sounds like if someone were to invent a new type of car but says 'well a normal person can't drive it, but I'm not going to explain why it is like a car'.

I mean, if you take your invention and demonstrate a persistent current in it without power (i.e. you measure a magnetic field) and then give them that result, it is then 'prima facie' evidenced as a utility and it would then be for the examiners to take steps to disprove those results.

I don't see why a superconductor wouldn't show the Meissner effect, but it is not for an examiner (nor me) to guess why the Meissner effect won't show up in your superconductor, it is for you to explain why. And in explaining why, I don't really see why that would disclose the actual invention you are seeking, but that is for you to judge.

One way or the other, though, if it a patent you seek then you have to make it public before it is granted. Just don't make it public before you've filed the application.

What utility do you claim and why can't you demonstrate that claim? This is the key point. Do this, and there is no issue at all in claiming a utility patent. If you cannot answer that question, then it looks odd to me, and it is grounds for rejection by an examiner.

MPEP 2164 is your US friend here, and there are similar terms in most other countries' patent laws.

2164.02 Working Example

Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be "working" or "prophetic." A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.

An applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing. In Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1078, 3 USPQ 2d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1987), as of Gould's filing date, no person had built a light amplifier or measured a population inversion in a gas discharge. The Court held that "The mere fact that something has not previously been done clearly is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for rejecting all applications purporting to disclose how to do it." 822 F.2d at 1078, 3 USPQ2d at 1304 (quoting In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956)).

The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970).

Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. But because only an enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual embodiments.

2164.04 Burden on the Examiner Under *>the< Enablement Requirement [R-1]

In order to make a rejection, the examiner has the initial burden to establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (examiner must provide a reasonable explanation as to why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the disclosure).

If you want to PM me and discuss under an NDA, then I'll try to help out if I can. I have no interest in the tech and can't help you with that, but this just sounds like pure procedural/format issues, not tech issues.

[johanfprins]

If you want to PM me and discuss under an NDA, then I'll try to help out if I can. I have no interest in the tech and can't help you with that, but this just sounds like pure procedural/format issues, not tech issues.

As I have said, I am not going to discuss this issue here in an open forum; but will adhere to the advice of my patent attorneys to keep quiet. If you want to conclude from this that I do not have superconduction at room and higher temperature, so be it. I will however be vindicated.

I am thus in mean time rather concentrating my efforts on proving the obvious fact that the traditional theories of superconduction are all hogwash. So rather read what I am writing on the other thread on QED and so-called "quantum gravity"; and discuss real physics with me.

[chrismb]

I don't have enough information (nor prior knowledge) to even judge in the negative, let alone the positive. I just think it'd help to understand what this superconductor of yours can be used for, if it doesn't do quite the same thing as superconductors accepted as such. Can it be used for magnet wire? If so, why not just make a superconducting magnet?

[johanfprins]

I don't have enough information (nor prior knowledge) to even judge in the negative, let alone the positive. I just think it'd help to understand what this superconductor of yours can be used for, if it doesn't do quite the same thing as superconductors accepted as such. Can it be used for magnet wire? If so, why not just make a superconducting magnet?

I am only willing to say that I am interested in electronic applications: Chips not generating heat and faster than anything available today. I am not willing to speculate on any other applications even though I do have others in mind.

So at this point I want to thank you for offering help. The truth is that I do not even know who and what you are and have full trust in my patent lawyers. I have been promised full cooperation before under an NDA: Not surprisingly they did not keep their side of the agreement. Fortunately what I revealed to them as an initial test is bogus. But even so if they reveal it I will try and sue the pants from their bodies.

[GIThruster]

The industry standard for demonstrating superconductivity is a four point test on a test article large enough to remove all ambiguity. That's what everyone does. You do this, and the patent examiner won't have much to quibble over.

[chrismb]

I am only willing to say that I am interested in electronic applications: Chips not generating heat and faster than anything available today. I am not willing to speculate on any other applications even though I do have others in mind.

So at this point I want to thank you for offering help. The truth is that I do not even know who and what you are and have full trust in my patent lawyers.

Well, I wish you well in your endeavours but, for what it is worth, it sounds like you are being too limiting in your trust of others.

To be simple about it, your reply suggests to me that you do not have a specific application in mind. You can either patent the manufacturing process for this superconducting substance or you can patent an application for it. If you have come up with some analysis which shows that a given material will be superconducting, once made, that's great but it isn't patentable. If you have to work with a company to work out how to manufacture your material then you should do that under an NDA. To progress it under a patent, or patent application, is a risk because the grant of that patent could be challenged for a host of reasons, but if you have an NDA, then even if your ideas are not fully formed your NDA is protection against someone taking unfair advantage of that information. If you publish a patent, then you can be sure someone will try to find a workaround, or seek to have the original grant annulled and you cut out of the picture altogether, and they will make sure that all of that exceeds your ability to cover the legal expenses.

Find the right company to work with, get an NDA in place, and then get them to file the patent, with you as inventor. And there is probably no need to ask for more than 5 or 10% because you'll have all the money you want out of that, and they'll be happy and want to be sure that everyone knows you invented it first because that will then strengthen their own interests in the patent by dismissing anyone else's claim on it.

But it sounds like you need help either to manufacture the material, or to put it to use in some application, and therefore you don't have anything yet to patent, until someone helps you fulfill one of those two outcomes.

To the extent our conversation has gone, I get the impression this is the outcome that is frustrating you and are blaming the examiners for short sightedness. If it is so then that would be unfair. It is not a matter of "petty rules", you can't just 'claim' a superconducting material. You have to claim method(s) of manufacture, and/or claim specific application(s).

I can only presume you know this, or that it has been explained to you by your patent lawyers, but there is perhaps no harm in a reminder on that when you are driving at fundamentally new technology.

But, obviously, I do not know the detail so I will leave you with those comments and hope that they might help you a little. Your patent lawyers do not have a principal objective to get you a solid patent. They have the objective about making money from handling your patent. That is the stark truth of it. Today there were only two people who were actually personally interested in getting your idea patented; you, because it is yours, and me, because I took a personal interest in trying to see if I could help out. Tomorrow there will be only one person interested in getting your idea patented. This is the hard reality of patenting something. It is a commercial enterprise and you are therefore in competition with other ideas and opportunities. I recommend you try to find a business who has the means to make your idea a reality and whom you can put your trust into. That way, there will then be lots more people who will have an interest in making your IPR a reality. In any case, I wish you good luck... because you shall need it.

[icarus]

Well, are we any closer to the truth on this unbelievably complicated and twisting tale of scientific misfortune?

Room temperature super-conduction or charlatanism?

How's those book sales going Prins?

[chrismb]

Just one last point to make; I scanned a few pages back and took a look at your paper, and in that paper it says

'Researchers in this field have become sceptical of such claims and insist on more information than a mere drop in the measured resistance to "zero".'

Again, you are leaving us to read between the lines, but I infer from this that you think if you have a material that can be measured as 'virtually zero resistance' but that some may still claim you have not achieved superconductivity.

Well, here's the bummer..... So what? WHO CARES if it is actually superconducting or not!?

If you are after a material that means a chip gives out no heat then it doesn't really matter if it gives out no heat at all, or a mW or two. In the sense of a utility, it makes no difference at all.

So, to achieve your claim of reducing the heat output from silicon, you need only claim a reduction of resistance in the material and you have your utility to claim for your patent.

If you might excuse my presumptiveness, I therefore presume that you feel a need to embed the claim of superconductivity in your patent.

But this isn't necessary. You need only claim a reduction in resistance and, if you really feel it necessary to do, you can claim that there is a theoretical prospect for superconductivity. Your claim cannot then be faulted by the examiners for an unjustified claim.

If the material is actually superconducting, people will discover that for themselves later on. You don't have to presume people are too stupid and won't figure that out, once the material becomes available.

But if it actually the superconductivity of this material that you want to claim, then I need to make it very clear to you that you cannot claim this in a patent.

I therefore strongly recommend that you drop any direct claim in your patent of superconductivity. It is unnecessary for a patent. You merely have to demonstrate the utility of reduced resistance.

If you really really insist on claiming superconductivity then you are after glory rather than a patent, and your books should serve that function. And if so then you should stop trying to use the patent system for your glorification and not criticise examiners for shortsightedness.

I've now given you a basis on which you could prosecute a successful patent application, and if you don't want to do that then I would have to presume you are after something different to what a patent is intended to do for you and you should avoid blaming the patent system for doing something it isn't there to do. I strongly recommend you stick with the claim of 'a low resistance material', people will discover the truth about it all in good time, and the garb of glory will then be bestowed upon your shoulders.

All the best.....