The following is a further posting in a series of articles by David French, a patent attorney with 35 years experience, which will review patents of interest touching on the field of Cold Fusion.
This is the second of a two-part outline of a recently published patent application originating from Francesco Piantelli. The first part addressed the content of the disclosure of the application. The second part addresses the scope of patent coverage apparently being sought.
Key patent coverage of the third PCT application claims
Every patent has to end with one or more “Claims” which stipulate the scope of control that the patent applicant aspires to achieve. These claims, appearing at the end of every patent document take the form of numbered sentences. Actually, each numbered passage is a phrase which completes a preamble such as: “I claim” or simply “Claims”. The first of the numbered claims always stands alone. Other claims may refer-back to an earlier claim and adopt the features and limitations included in the earlier claim. Accordingly, such dependent claims are “narrower” in scope than the earlier claims to which they refer. This makes the first claim more important.
An initial impression of the scope of coverage of a patent can be obtained by examining simply Claim 1 . In this case, Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method to obtain energy by nuclear reactions between hydrogen (31) and a transition metal (19 18 that go), said method including the steps of:
prearranging (1 10) a primary material (19) comprising a predetermined amount of cluster nanostructures (21) having a number of atoms (38) of said transition metal (19) lower than a predetermined number of atoms;
keeping said hydrogen (31) in contact with said clusters (21);
heating (130) said primary material (19) at an initial process temperature (T-i) higher than a predetermined critical temperature;
dissociation of H2 molecules of said hydrogen (31) and formation of H- ions (35) as a consequence of said step of heating;
impulsively acting (140) on said primary material (19);
orbital capture (150) of said H- ions (35) by said cluster nanostructures (21) as a consequence of said step (140) of impulsively acting;
capture (151) of said H- ions (35) by said atoms (38) of said clusters (21 ), generating a thermal power as a primary reaction heat (Qi);
removing (160) said thermal power, maintaining the temperature of the primary material (19) above said critical temperature,
characterised in that
it provides a step (1 15) of prearranging an amount of a secondary material (28) that faces said primary material (19) and within a predetermined maximum distance (L) from said primary material (19),
said secondary material (28) arranged to interact with protons (35″‘) emitted from said primary material (19) by energy-releasing proton-dependent nuclear reactions that occur with a release of further thermal power in the form of a secondary reaction heat (Q2),
such that said step of removing (160) comprises said generated thermal power as said primary reaction heat (Qi) and said secondary reaction heat (Q2).
[End of claim 1
The numbers shown in parentheses in the above claim are those used in the written description to explain the parts shown in the drawings. Further details of the invention are specified in the subsequent claims, most of which are in dependent form. These are all worth reading.
Claim 1 is written in a European style by which it is assumed that, generally, the description preceding the words “characterized in that” covers things or arrangement which were previously known. The claim as a whole must not describe anything that was previously known in order to meet the novelty requirement. This suggests that the very last paragraph following “characterized in that” provides the claim with its required degree of novelty. It would do so by ensuring that the overall wording of the entire claim does not describe anything that was previously available to the public. Effectively, this patent application is directed to the feature of producing energy by the secondary reaction.
Claim 1 is not in the final form that the applicant may choose to present to individual patent offices around the world, once the application exits the PCT system as of October 26, 2013. But it represents the thinking of the patent attorney presently managing this filing. Claim 1 may or may not describe a process that works. However, this claim can be analyzed for certain technical defects that may cause problems for the eventual owner of any patent that may issue.
Challenge of enforcing such a claim
In order for this claim to be infringed, the patent owner must demonstrate that other parties are contravening the wording of the claim. This means demonstrating that an alleged infringer is carrying out each and every step of the method listed in Claim 1. Unfortunately, this claim includes a number of limitations that might be very hard to prove. Examples are:
– the clusters must have a number of atoms of a transition metal e.g. nickel, that is lower than a predetermined number of atoms (This predetermined number, according to the disclosure, is established by the requirement that this is a number “above which the crystals lose the cluster features”. Nothing more is said as to the critical number of atoms per cluster. Accordingly, this stipulation may be inadequately defined in the patent and in the claim.)
– causing dissociation of H2 molecules to form H- ions as a consequence of heating (Note: nickel can cause the spontaneous dissociation of H2 molecules to form H- ions without heating) e.g.:
” Hydrogen molecules are also adsorbed on to the surface of the nickel. When this happens, the hydrogen molecules are broken into atoms. These can move around on the surface of the nickel.
– orbital capture of H- ions by the cluster nanostructures as a consequence of the step of “impulsively acting” on the clusters (“Impulsively acting” as defined in the disclosure means applying a voltage impulsively but not otherwise defined. This may be another instance of inadequate disclosure);
– capture (presumably nuclear) of the H- ions (presumably those that have already been orbitally captured) by the atoms of said clusters to thereby generate a primary reaction heat (How do you prove that this is occurring?)
– providing an amount of a secondary material, e.g. lithium or boron or a variety of alloys, that faces the primary material and is positioned within a predetermined maximum distance (L) (- defined in the disclosure as corresponding to the average free path that such protons can travel before decaying into atomic hydrogen, e.g between 7 and 8 cm) from said primary material,
– the above steps resulting in the secondary material interacting with protons emitted from said primary material by energy-releasing proton-dependent nuclear reactions that occur with a release of further secondary heat (How do you prove that heat is coming from two different sources?)
It should be apparent that proving that all of these events are occurring in an infringer’s accused energy-generation process may be difficult. This is quite apart from whether or not the above claim describes a process that will work.
This claim is equivalent to defining a recipe for baking cookies in terms of what happens in the oven. This is a very undesirable claim format.
Requirement for invention operability and sufficiency of disclosure
It is an essential requirement of any patent that the invention must work. Furthermore, the description accompanying the patent application must be sufficient to enable knowledgeable workmen to reproduce the invention and produce the promised useful result.
Within the confines of this posting, it is not practical to assess whether the disclosure in this application meets all of these requirements. But as an opening exercise, it will be seen that the premise behind this asserted invention is that proton capture followed by proton emission is at the heart of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction – LENR processes according to Francesco Piantelli.
Future processing of the application
This filing does not have to be presented to an Examiner at a national patent office until after exiting the PCT system. This must occur by month 30 or 31 from the original Italian priority filing date, e.g. by April-May 26, 2013. It is highly likely, and virtually certain before the USPTO, that the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the disclosure in this application delivers what it promises, i.e. heat generated through the process characterized by the above claim.
Apart from Claim 1, Claim 8 represents a separate, independent, characterization of the invention in terms of an apparatus that carries out the process of claim 1. That claim should be reviewed as well. Before national patent offices, the applicant will be entitled to amend these claims further, on the condition that the amended claims are still based upon the original “story” included in the disclosure that became frozen at the time that the PCT filing was made, i.e. April 26, 2011. Accordingly, there will be further interesting developments as this application progresses through the patent system in various countries around the world.
5 Replies to “Publication of a further, 3rd, International Patent Application by Francisco Piantelli – Part II”
Thank you for the article… so much to learn.
This poem has touched a place in me… I hope you enjoy it.
“The Book Keepers” A Found Poem
of your community.
I want you to know,
done nothing not
It is private.
I gather from
what I read.
You imagine me.
If you were
to read books.
in real life—
I have said this.
I am sure you are
still ready to respond.
Ideas circulate freely,
determined to show
wisdom and maturity
in a free society.
expose your children
to all sorts
They will be better equipped
to make decisions
a good citizen,
I have followed dptoleemenvs in the misnamed field of cold fusion since its inception in 1989.The term cold fusion is an oxymoron. To achieve nuclear fusion with a particle, wave form energy(photon)or kinetic energy(heat) must be applied to allow the particle to overcome the natural energy present as a barrier in any atomic formation at room temperature. This is good for humanity since if there were many fusion reactions occuring at the temperatures normally encountered in our environment we would all perish from the released radiation. Radioactivity of some elements in the earth are not primarily fusion reactions but instabilities of atomic nuclei, and nature has helped us by shielding them with layers of soil and rock.I believe that I was first to suggest that Rossi’s device was a form of linear accelerator since I am convinced that he had to somehow inject some sort of energy into a particle to the extent that it could cause the nuclei of encountered atoms to become unstable and release some sort of energy.The most obvious particle to accelerate would be an easily formed negatively charged hydrogen atom i.e.a proton with two electrons. This ion can be energized by falling through an external electrostatic field or by an internal atomic positive field. Since the particle exhibits both mass and wave characteristics, once inside the electronic shells of the atom, the particle doesnt have to enter the nucleus but just get near enough for its wave character to disturb the nuclear equilibrium and cause a rearangement of forces with a subsequent ejection of energy. The possibile interactions are so many that any form and magnitude could ensue. The internal atomic structure can be considered a wave guide, which can enhance the wave form of the entering particle through Fournier transforms. I saw this effect when I conducted a research program for my masters thesis which involved measuring electron spin absorption bands in free radicals in 1956. The test cavity was a wave guide that enhanced the absorbtion when the free radicals were placed in one of the wave guide nodes. This is perhaps only an analogy but at this stage of developing a workable theorem with the dirth of information from Rossi, anything goes
Dear Mr French, Drew (http://www.lenrforum.eu/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=902&p=3128#p3125) on LENR forum noticed that Celani seems not to have paid the required fees since few month.
what is you opinion given the public documents…
maybe is there law details that we miss
Thank you for referring this question to me. I am pleased to answer your observations shortly. I may review the point at greater length subsequently.
Most patent offices charge an annual “maintenance” fee for issued patents and, in many cases for pending applications. This helps keep down the cost of filing fees. The “Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property”, Article 5bis:
initiated in 1883 requires countries to provide a six-month grace period if the deadline to pay a maintenance fee is missed. This can occur regularly through administrative error. That is likely what has occurred in this case. I expect the necessary fee will be paid within the extension period.
It is a shame that people are so cooarontatinnfl about this. Same story with any great inventions. This machine, if real, does not invalid all of Physics: it simply invalids a specific subset and calls for a new theory which will supersede and include this device’s machinations.
Comments are closed.