Tag: patents

Posted on

David French leaves legacy of public service to breakthrough energy

Patent lawyer and Cold Fusion Now! contributor David J. French passed away quietly in his sleep the night of Sunday Dec 2.

He spent his career at private law firms and also worked with the Canadian government on law reform and international patent issues before retiring to his own law firm Second Counsel in Ottawa, Canada.

He began consulting with scientists in the CMNS field offering patent advice and helping to secure their intellectual property, sharing much of his expertise knowledge pro bono.

David in blue shirt on sailboat with Bernie Sanders! (not shown) August 2011

David J. French wrote his first article for Cold Fusion Now! in August 2011 – Review of Cold Fusion Patents – and continued to write through May 2016, doing an analysis of Andrea Rossi’s patent filings.

See the whole set of David J. French articles for Cold Fusion Now! here: https://coldfusionnow.org/patents/

He also published in the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science and began speaking publicly at conferences on the issues of patents and cold fusion.

In 2012, he spoke at ICCF-17 on Patents and Cold Fusion, published in the Proceedings [JCMNS V13 .pdf].

In 2013, he presented a poster at ICCF-18 Patenting Cold Fusion Inventions before the US Patent & Trademark Office which this paper is based on.

David French examines model airplane December 2009

At the CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT, David J. French spoke March 22 2014 on The role of the Patent Attorney in patenting Cold Fusion inventions seen here on Youtube.

In June 2017, he spoke at the 12th International Workshop on Anomalies in Hydrogen Loaded Metals and published Key Principles for Patenting in the Land of LENR in the Proceedings [JCMNS Vol26 .pdf].

Video of the talk was captured by Société Française de la Science Nucléaire dans la Matière Condensée:

Although he attended ICCF-21 this past June 2018, he did not present formally, but spent hours sharing patent advice with the scientists there. High drama ensued when, on the day of the outing, the tour bus full of scientists forgot David at a Rocky Mountain Park visitor center. He notoriously decided to hitchhike home from 7800 feet (~ 2400 m), getting multiple rides from locals off the mountain. Nuclear scientists searched the upper peak, looking for the missing patent lawyer until learning he was napping back at campus!

Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado, US.

David French showed generosity and kindness to the CMNS community with his open and steady demeanor. Like his fellow Canadian Marshall McLuhan, David J. French embodied the even-tempered balance of issues, always willing to listen, rejecting emotional judgements in favor of a civil discourse that pursues a common understanding.

His last update for Cold Fusion Now! was in April 2018 when he joined me on the podcast. Personally, David was a voice of inspiration, creativity, and positivity. I hope that some of his creative writings see the light of day – he dabbled in fiction and screenplays, as well as history.

His many friends in the CMNS community will surely miss his understanding and contribution of law, science, and technology, and this friend will too.

Posted on

Analysis of New Rossi PCT filing based on US Patent 9,115,913 issued 25Aug15

On August 25, 2015 a US patent issued to Leonardo Corporation on an invention by Andrea Rossi. Discussion of this patent is available in previous postings on ColdFusionNow.org here:

• Analysis of Rossi US Patent 9,115,913 Issued 25Aug15 Part 1
• Analysis of Rossi US Patent 9,115,913 Issued 25aug15 Part 2

This US patent, US 9,115,913, was filed directly before the US Patent Office by Andrea Rossi on March 14, 2012 and thereafter assigned to Leonardo Corporation, both of Miami Beach, Florida. This filing was unusual in that it was not laid-open for public examination – “published” – as of 18 months from its earliest filing date, as is typical for virtually all countries around the world.

This publication procedure applies even for the United States in respect of the bulk of American applications. Instead, the applicant in this case took advantage of a special provision in US law that allows a request for non-publication to be made if supported by a certification that the invention disclosed in the application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in or destined for another country that provides for publication at eighteen months after filing.

The attorney for Rossi and Leonardo Corporation, knowing that this US application was going to issued patent in August, 2015, filed a statement before this occurred withdrawing the above certification and thereby freeing-up the possibility of filing patents for the same invention abroad. As a consequence, a PCT application was filed on July 28, 2015. That PCT application was published as part of the PCT filing procedure on February 4, 2016. A summary of key data from this application is as follows:

________________________________________

Pub. No.: WO/2016/018851
Application No.: PCT/US2015/042353
Publication Date: 04.02.2016
Filing Date: 28.07.2015

IPC: F24J 1/00 (2006.01)
F MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
24 HEATING; RANGES; VENTILATING
J PRODUCTION OR USE OF HEAT NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
1 Apparatus or devices using heat produced by exothermal chemical reactions other than by combustion

Applicants: ROSSI, Andrea [US/US]; (US)
Inventors: ROSSI, Andrea; (US)
Agent: OCCHIUTI, Frank; (US)
Priority Data: 61/999,582 01.08.2014 US

Title (EN) FLUID HEATER
(FR) DISPOSITIF CHAUFFANT POUR FLUIDE

Abstract:
(EN)An apparatus for heating fluid includes a tank for holding fluid to be heated, and a fuel wafer in fluid communication with the fluid. The fuel wafer includes a fuel mixture including reagents and a catalyst, and an electrical resistor or other heat source in thermal communication with the fuel mixture and the catalyst.
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2016018851

This is Rossi’s patent assault on the World. This is an extension of the US patent of August 25, 2015, and it is an upgraded rewrite. This document has the potential of producing patents in over 100 countries around the World. This includes further patents in the US.

Patents are relevant for two reasons:

• the “story” that they contain, and
• the potential monopoly that they may generate.

This published application is relevant for both.

Addressing the description of the drawings and instructions for building a working system, I have compared the disclosure in the US patent to the disclosure in the published PCT application. For convenience, I will reproduce that comparison now in its entirety. Square brackets indicate deletion. Black upright text represents the original text in the US patent and italics represents the changes added to that original text to produce the published PCT application.

Rossi US patent amended in italics to produce Published PCT Application of 6Feb16

FLUID HEATER

CROSS – REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
This application claims the benefit of the August 1, 2014 priority date of U.S. Application No. 61/999,582, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE
This disclosure relates to heat transfer systems, and in particular to devices for transferring heat to a fluid.

BACKGROUND
Many heat transfer systems use hot fluids as a heat transfer medium. Such systems include a heat generator for generating heat, a heat transfer medium in thermal communication with the energy source, and a pump to move the heated medium to wherever the heat is needed. Because of its high heat capacity and its abundance, a common heat transfer fluid is water, both in its liquid and gas phase.

A variety of heat generators are in common use. For instance, in nuclear power plants, nuclear fission provides energy for heating water. There also exist solar water heaters that use solar energy. However, most heat transfer sources rely on an exothermal chemical reaction, and in particular, on combustion of some fuel.

SUMMARY
In one aspect, the invention features an apparatus for heating fluid, the apparatus including a tank for holding fluid to be heated, and a fuel wafer in fluid communication with the fluid, the fuel wafer including a fuel mixture including reagents and a catalyst, and a heat source, [for example an electrical resistor], or ignition source in thermal communication with the fuel mixture and the catalyst.

The heat source or ignition source can be an electrical resistor, or a heat source that relies on either heat from combustion, such as combustion of natural gas, or a heat source that relies on inductive heating.

Among the embodiments are those in which the fuel mixture includes lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, those in which the catalyst includes a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form, or in any combination thereof.

In other embodiments, the catalyst in powdered form, has been treated to enhance its porosity. For example, the catalyst can be nickel powder that has been treated to enhance porosity thereof. [In those embodiments that include an electrical resistor, the].The apparatus can also include an electrical energy source, such as a voltage source and/or current source in electrical communication with the [resistor.] heat source.

Among the other embodiments are those in which the fuel wafer includes a multi-layer structure having a layer of the fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing the electrical resistor. heat source.

In yet other embodiments, the fuel wafer includes a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of the heating insert.

A variety of tanks can be used. For example, in some embodiments, the tank includes a recess for receiving the fuel wafer therein. Among these are embodiments in which the tank further includes a door for sealing the recess. In yet other embodiments the tank includes a radiation shield.

Also included among the embodiments are those that further include a controller in communication with the voltage source. Among these are controllers that are configured to [cause] vary the voltage in response to temperature of the fluid to be heated.

In another aspect, the invention features an apparatus for heating a fluid, the apparatus including means for containing the fluid, and means for holding a fuel mixture containing a catalyst and a reagent, and means for initiating a reaction sequence mediated by the catalyst to cause an exothermic reaction.

Another aspect of the invention is a composition of matter for generating heat, the composition including a mixture of porosity-enhanced nickel powder, lithium powder, and lithium aluminum powder, and a. A heat source in thermal communication with the mixture can be used for initiating a nickel catalyzed exothermic reaction.

Yet another aspect features a for generating heat. The composition includes a fuel mixture and a catalyst. The catalyst comprises a group 10 element.

Embodiments include those in which the catalyst comprises nickel. Among these are embodiments in which the nickel is in the form of nickel powder and those in which the nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.

Another aspect of the invention is a method of heating a fluid, the method including placing a mixture of nickel powder, lithium powder, and lithium aluminum hydride in thermal communication with the fluid; and heating the mixture, thereby initiating an exothermic reaction in the mixture.

These and other features of the invention will be apparent from the following detailed description and the accompanying figures, in which:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 shows a heat transfer system having a heat source;

FIG. 2 is a cut-away view of the heat source in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is a cross-section of the wafer for use in the heat source of FIG. 2;

FIG. 4 shows an exemplary resistor in the central layer of the wafer shown in FIG. 3.

FIG. 5 shows the heat source of FIG. 1 operating with a conventional furnace.

FIG. 6 shows plural heat sources like that in FIG. 2 connected in series.

FIG. 7 shows plural heat sources like that in FIG. 2 connected in parallel.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Referring to FIG. 1, a heat transfer system 10 includes a pipe 12 for transporting a heated fluid in a closed loop between a heat source 14 and a thermal load 16. In most cases, for example where there is hydraulic resistance to be overcome, a pump 18 propels the heated fluid. However, in some cases, such as where the heated fluid is steam, the fluid’s own pressure is sufficient to propel the fluid. A typical thermal load 16 includes radiators such as those commonly used for heating interior spaces.

As shown in FIG. 2, the heat source 14 is a tank 20 having a lead composite shield, an inlet 22 and an outlet 24 , both of which are connected to the pipe 12 . The interior of the tank 20 contains fluid to be heated. In many cases, the fluid is water. However, other fluids can be used. In addition, the fluid need not be a liquid fluid but can also be a gas, such as air.

The tank 20 further includes a door 26 that leads to a receptacle 28 protruding into the tank 20 . Radiating fins 30 protrude from walls of the receptacle 28 into the tank 20 . To maximize heat transfer, the receptacle 28 and the fins 30 are typically made of a material having high thermal conductivity, such as metal. A suitable metal is one not subject to corrosion, such as stainless steel.

The receptacle 28 holds a multi-layer wafer 32 for generating heat. A voltage source 33 is connected to the wafer 32 , and a controller 35 for controlling the voltage source 33 in response to temperature of fluid in the tank 12 as sensed by a sensor 37.

As shown in FIG. 3, the multilayer fuel wafer 32 includes a heating section 34 sandwiched between two fuel sections 36 , 38 . The heating section 34 features a central layer 40 made of an insulating material, such as mica, that supports a resistor 42. It should be noted that other heating sources can be used, including heat sources that rely on combustion of, for example, natural gas, as well as heat sources that rely on electrical induction. The use of gas thus avoids the need to have a source of electrical energy for initiating the reaction.

FIG. 4 shows an exemplary central layer 40 having holes 44 through which a resistive wire 42 has been wound. This resistive wire 42 is connected to the voltage source 33 . First and second insulating layers 46 , 48 , such as mica layers, encase the central layer 40 to provide electrical insulation from the adjacent fuel sections 36 , 38.

Each fuel section 36 , 38 features a pair of thermally conductive layers 50, 52, such as steel layers. Sandwiched between each pair of conductive layers 50, 52 is a fuel layer 54 that contains a fuel mixture having nickel, lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride [LiAlH.sub.4] LiAlH4 (“LAH”), all in powdered form. Preferably, the nickel has been treated to increase its porosity, for example by heating the nickel powder to for times and temperatures selected to superheat any water present in micro-cavities that are inherently in each particle of nickel powder. The resulting steam pressure causes explosions that create larger cavities, as well as additional smaller nickel particles.

The entire set of layers is welded together on all sides to form a sealed unit. The size of the wafer 32 is not important to its function. However, the wafer 32 is easier to handle if it is on the order of 1/3 inch thick and 12 inches on each side. The steel layers 50, 52 are typically 1 mm thick, and the mica layers 40, 48 , which are covered by a protective polymer coating, are on the order of 0.1 mm thick. However, other thicknesses can also be used.

In operation, a voltage is applied by the voltage source 33 to heat the resistor 42 . Heat from the resistor 42 is then transferred by conduction to the fuel layers 54 , where it initiates a sequence of reactions, the last of which is reversible. These reactions, which are catalyzed by the presence of the nickel powder, are: [<del datetime=”2016-05-14T22:30:44+00:00″>3LiAlH.sub.4.fwdarw.Li.sub.3AlH.sub.6+2Al+3H.sub.2 2Li.sub.3AlH.sub.6.fwdarw.6LiH+2Al+3H.sub.2 2LiH+2Al.fwdarw.2LiAl+H.sub.2]

3LiAlH4- Li3AlHs + 2A1 + 3H2
2Li3AlHs- 6LiH + 2A1 + 3H2
2LiH + 2A1 – 2LiAl + H2

Once the reaction sequence is initiated, the voltage source 33 can be turned off, as the reaction sequence is self-sustaining. However, the reaction rate may not be constant. Hence, it may be desirable to turn on the voltage source 33 at certain times to reinvigorate the reaction. To determine whether or not the voltage source 33 should be turned on, the temperature sensor 37 provides a signal to the controller 35 , which then determines whether or not to apply a voltage in response to the temperature signal. It has been found that after the reaction has generated approximately 6 kilowatt hours of energy, it is desirable to apply approximately 1 kilowatt hour of electrical energy to reinvigorate the reaction sequence.

Eventually, the efficiency of the wafer 32 will decrease to the point where it is uneconomical to continually reinvigorate the reaction sequence. At this point, the wafer 32 can simply be replaced. Typically, the wafer 32 will sustain approximately 180 days of continuous operation before replacement becomes desirable.

The powder in the fuel mixture consists largely of spherical particles having diameters in the nanometer to micrometer range, for example between 1 nanometer and 100 micrometers. Variations in the ratio of reactants and catalyst tend to govern reaction rate and are not critical. However, it has been found that a suitable mixture would include a starting mixture of 50% nickel, 20% lithium, and 30% LAH. Within this mixture, nickel acts as a catalyst for the reaction, and is not itself a reagent. While nickel is particularly useful because of its relative abundance, its function can also be carried out by other elements in column 10 of the periodic table, such as platinum or palladium.

FIGS. 5-7 show a variety of ways to connect the heat source 14 in FIG. 1.

In FIG. 5, the heat source 14 is placed downstream from a conventional furnace 56 . In this case, the controller 35 is optionally connected to control the conventional furnace. As a result, the conventional furnace 56 will remain off unless the output temperature of the heat source 14 falls below some threshold, at which point the furnace 56 will start. In this configuration, the conventional furnace 56 functions as a back-up unit.

In FIG. 6, first and second heat sources 58 , 60 like that described in FIGS. 1-4 are connected in series. This configuration provides a hotter output temperature than can be provided with only a single heat source 58 by itself. Additional heat sources can be added in series to further increase the temperature.

In FIG. 7, first and second heat sources 62 , 64 like that described in FIGS. 1-4 are connected in parallel. In this configuration, the output volume can be made greater than what could be provided by a single heat transfer unit by itself. Additional heat transfer units can be added in parallel to further increase volume.

In one embodiment, the reagents are placed in the reaction chamber at a pressure of 3-6 bar and a temperature of from 400 C to 600 C. An anode is placed at one side of the reactor and a cathode is placed at the other side of the reactor. This accelerates electrons between them to an extent sufficient to have very high energy, in excess of 100 KeV. Regulation of the electron energy can be carried out by regulating the electric field between the cathode and the anode.

Having described the invention, and a preferred embodiment thereof, what I claim as new and secured by letters patent is:

[Note: The following text is based on automatic Optical Character Recognition processes. Please use the PDF version for legal matters]

CLAIMS
1. An apparatus for heating fluid, said apparatus comprising a tank for holding fluid to be heated and a fuel wafer in fluid communication with sai fluid, said fuel wafer including a fuel mixture including reagents and a catalyst, and an ignition source in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst, wherein the ignition source is selected from the group consisting of an induction heater, an electrical resistor, a heater that relies on natural gas combustion, and a heater that relies on combustion of fuel.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said ignition source comprises an electrical resistor.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said ignition source comprises an induction heater.
4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said ignition source obtains heat from combustion of natural gas.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium and lithium aluminum hydride.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.
8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element.
9. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a voltage source in electrical communication with said ignition source.
10. The apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a voltage source in electrical communication with said ignition source.
11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi -layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said ignition source.
12. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi -layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said ignition source.
13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert.
14. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein.
15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess.
16. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a radiation shield.
17. The apparatus of claim 9, further comprising a controller in communication with said voltage source.
18. The apparatus of claim 17, wherein said controller is configured to cause vary said voltage in response to temperature of said fluid to be heated.

19. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated, wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid, wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source, wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor, wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride, wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element, wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture, wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.
20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
21. The apparatus of claim 20, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.
22. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi -layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said electrical resistor.
23. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert.
24. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein.
25. The apparatus of claim 24, wherein said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess
26. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said tank comprises a radiation shield.
27. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein said reaction in said fuel mixture is at least partially reversible.
28. The apparatus of claim 27, wherein said reaction comprises reacting lithium hydride with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas.

29. An apparatus for heating a fluid, said apparatus comprising means for containing said fluid, and means for holding a fuel mixture containing a catalyst and a reagent, and means for initiating a reaction sequence mediated by said catalyst to cause an exothermic reaction.
30. The apparatus of claim 29 , wherein said catalyst that comprises a group 10 element and a reagent comprises lithium and lithium aluminum hydride, said apparatus further comprising means for periodically reinvigorating said reaction sequence.

31. A composition of matter for generating heat, sai composition comprising a mixture of porosity-enhanced nickel powder, lithium powder, and lithium aluminum powder.

32. A composition of matter for generating heat, sai composition comprising a fuel mixture and a catalyst, said catalyst comprising a group 10 element.
33. The composition of claim 32, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel.
34. The composition of claim 32, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
35. The composition of claim 34, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.

36. A method of heating a fluid, said method comprising placing a mixture of nickel powder, lithium powder, and lithium aluminum hydride in thermal communication with said fluid; and heating said mixture, thereby initiating an exothermic reaction in said mixture.

Analysis of the PCT Published Application

The “Detailed Description” is the story portion of the patent disclosure, which should enable skilled workman to put the invention into use. The claims represent the proposed monopoly that the applicant aspires to obtain. At this stage in the patenting process, when we are addressing simply an application, these claims may be considered to be a “wish list”. The claims, however, are a useful guide to what the inventor thinks is important in the story.

The story has only modest changes over those contained in the disclosure of the US patent. The most significant change is the broadening of the means for heating the fuel to include not only an electrical resistor, but also other specific means:

“The heat source or ignition source can be an electrical resistor, or a heat source that relies on either heat from combustion, such as combustion of natural gas, or a heat source that relies on inductive heating.”

This change shows up in the claims.

Here is Claim 1 of the issued US patent:

1. An apparatus for heating fluid, said apparatus comprising a tank, an electrical resistor, and a fuel wafer,
wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated,
wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid,
wherein said fuel wafer includes a fuel mixture that includes reagents and a catalyst,
wherein said electrical resistor is in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst,
wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source,
wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor,
wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride,
wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element,
wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture,
wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.

This claim has a “loophole” in the sense that if heating could be provided by mechanism other than an electrical resistor, then the claim would be avoided. This “loophole” has been closed in the revised disclosure and new proposed set of claims that are included in the PCT filing. In fact, this new set of claims represents a fresh “wish list” that has not been whittled down by a patent examiner before a patent office. Significantly, this PCT application can re-enter the United States at any time up to February 1, 2017. This will allow Rossi and Leonardo Corporation to get “another bite at the apple” before the US Patent Office.

On exiting the PCT in 2017 the owners of this application will be entitled to make National Entry patent filings in the over 100 countries who are members of the PCT. Accordingly, this application represents a possible World initiative by Rossi and Leonardo Corporation to control the heat generation process described in the above patent disclosure. In fact, National Entry applications already been made before the European Patent Office and in Australia, both on March 16, 2016.

Applications published by the PCT system are accompanied by a preliminary, nonbinding, Search Report. In this case, the Search Report identifies relevant Prior Art here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032223758/ISR/WO2016018851.pdf

The code is at the bottom. The symbol “X” means that a claim actually describes something that is already known. This, if true, will knock the claim out. The symbol “Y” means that the claim describes an obvious variant on something that is already known. This is an arguable ground for rejection that could prove troublesome. And the symbol “A” means that the document is closely related, but not relevant to examination.

The PCT Searcher/Examiner also provides a rather lengthy analysis here:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032229115/WOSA/WO2016018851.pdf

This is a US Patent Office Searcher/Examiner providing his opinion. Although he is doing so on behalf of the WIPO as part of the PCT system, there is a good probability that this opinion is exceptionally lengthy because of the reluctance by the US Patent Office to endorse or allow many patent applications directed to “Cold Fusion”.

It is important to note that, although the greater part of the claims have been criticized in the above opinion, claims numbers 19 through 28 have not been challenged. There is a very good prospect, therefore, that these claims will eventually be present in patents that will be granted not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world. Based on a quick comparison, these claims, particularly claim 19 which dominates the others, appear to parallel the claims that have already been allowed in the US patent granted August 25, 2016.

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.Second-Counsel.com.

Posted on

Analysis of Rossi US Patent 9,115,913 issued 25Aug15 Part 1

Part 1

Due to the length of analysis involved, this posting is divided into parts. This present part is Part 1. Reference to Part 2 is made here.

On August 25, 2015 a US patent issued to Leonardo Corporation on an invention by Andrea Rossi. This US patent, US 9,115,913, is part of a series of applications filed by Andrea Rossi variously in Italy, before the European and United States Patent Offices, and under the Patent Cooperation Treaty. However, this specific application, unusually, and not like the others, was filed directly before the US Patent Office by Andrea Rossi on March 14, 2012 using a new attorney. It was thereafter assigned to a company originally formed by Andrea Rossi, Leonardo Corporation, both of Miami Beach, Florida. Further assignments may have occurred, but they were not, as of August 25, 2015, available for review over the Internet at the United States Patent Office – US PTO.

The application leading to this August 25th patent was unusual in that it was not laid-open for public examination – “published” – as of 18 months from its earliest filing date, as is typical for virtually all countries around the world. This publication procedure applies even for the United States in respect of the bulk of American applications. Instead, the applicant in this case took advantage of a special provision in US law summarized as follows:

37 C.F.R. 1.213 Nonpublication request.

• (a) If the invention disclosed in an application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, the application will not be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and § 1.211 provided:
o (1) A request (nonpublication request) is submitted with the application upon filing;
o (2) The request states in a conspicuous manner that the application is not to be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
o (3) The request contains a certification that the invention disclosed in the application has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing; and
o (4) The request is signed in compliance with § 1.33(b).

Such a request was filed on Rossi’s behalf at the time of filing.

The following is a correction to what was published earlier on the prospect for foreign filings corresponding to Rossi’s US patent of August 25th, 2015, No 9,115,913.

There is a possibility, probably a likelihood, that Rossi patent applications have been filed outside the US for inventions disclosed in US patent 9,115,913. This would likely be in the form of an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Rossi filed a NonPublication request under 35USC122(b)(2) with his application when it was filed on March 14, 2012. But this section goes on to provide:

(ii) An applicant may rescind a request made under clause (i) at any time.

(iii) An applicant who has made a request under clause (i) but who subsequently files, in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall notify the Director of such filing not later than 45 days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. A failure of the applicant to provide such notice within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned.

Rossi filed a letter at the US Patent Office on July 27, 2015 withdrawing the non-publication request.

The consequence is that Rossi may have, and probably has, filed corresponding patent applications in other countries as early as June 12, 2015. This could be done on a bulk basis using the PCT. Filings made earlier that that would invalidate the US patent.

All filings made from June 12, 2015 or later would be subject to the novelty requirements of the national laws of each country applied as of the actual filing date in each country. In Europe any disclosures prior to the local filing date would qualify as prior art. Canada, Australia, South Korea and prospectively a number of other countries will shelter applications for up to one year for “self-originating” disclosures that can be traced to the applicant.

The Lugano Report released in October 6, 2014 contained a speculation that at least part of the “fuel” in the Lugano apparatus consisted of Lithium Aluminum Hydride (page 28). Lithium was also included in the initial fuel mixture. Claim 1 in Rossi’s August 25, 2015 US patent specifies for a fuel that includes both Lithium and Lithium Aluminum Hydride. The claim also stipulates for a control circuit that reheats the fuel using an electrical resistor when the reaction needs “rejuvenation”. Dependent claims add further limitations.

It is an unresolved question whether Applications filed by Rossi in countries not providing a grace period will be able to survive exposure to the prior art. Even where there is a grace period, Rossi applications will be exposed to the disclosures of independent origin arising from others.

A filing, for example under the PCT, will not normally be published until 18 months from its filing dated. Therefore some time will likely pass before the extent of such filings is known.

Quality of the disclosure

Unlike other applications filed on behalf of Rossi, and indeed many patent applications filed around the world, the disclosure in this case is relatively short and to the point. This is a sign of good patent draftsmanship. The patent disclosure contains no discussion of theory. In fact, some readers will find this disappointing; but the reality is that it is not required for an inventor to disclose a theory supporting why an invention works. It is enough for the disclosure to provide sufficient direction to enable a skilled workman in the field to reproduce the useful results promised by the disclosure.

This patent has the signs of having been drafted by a particularly competent patent attorney. The preamble section under the titles Field of Disclosure and Background are about as short as you could ever expect. In fact, under Field of Disclosure the text simply provides: “This disclosure relates to heat transfer systems, and in particular to devices for transferring heat to a fluid.” The Background section that follows contains a mere 7 sentences divided into 2 paragraphs. Compare this with the bulk of US and other national patents that have extensive content in these sections. Elaborate content in these two portions of a patent disclosure is not required. What is key is to describe how to build something that is useful and then to identify the features of what is disclosed which are novel, inventive and over which the applicant wishes to obtain exclusive rights. Too few inventors ever understand these principles.

Before leaving this portion of the disclosure it is important to remark that these statements do not define the invention. They are not binding on the scope of the exclusive rights being granted. They are merely guidelines to get a reader started in reviewing the entire patent document. The “invention” for which the patent has been granted is defined in the one or more patent “claims” that conclude the patent document. The invention in this case is not about a novel arrangement for “transferring heat to a fluid”. The novelty that supports the validity of the patent claims resides elsewhere.

Further, the Summary of the Invention portion of the disclosure is not binding on the scope of monopoly established by the claims. It is the claims that count. However, in this particular case, the drafting attorney has simply used the text of the claims in order to generate the Summary of the Invention. A simple comparison will show that one is derived from the other. This is good patent practice.

The Patent Claims

A patent is all about obtaining exclusive rights. Those rights are defined in the “claims” which appear as numbered sentences usually at the end of the patent document. Each numbered claim is actually the completion of a preamble statement such as: “I claim” or, as in Canada, “The embodiments of the invention in which an exclusive right is claimed are as follows”. Each claim completes the preamble by listing elements which are interrelated in a specific way to define something that is new, something that has never before been “available to the public.” This last phrase can be understood to include any obvious variants on things explicitly previously available to the public.

A patent can have multiple claims restating the exclusive rights over and over again with more specific detail. As a convenient compressed mode, a 2nd claim can refer-back to an earlier claim thereby adopting all of its limitations. A dependent claim, such as Claim 2, may appear to be very short. However, it is longer than Claim 1 from which it depends since it adopts all of the limitations listed in Claim 1.

It is a basic principle that if a competitor does not infringe Claim 1 then they cannot infringe any of the claims dependent on Claim 1. Therefore, for infringement purposes, it may be sufficient to stop the analysis after reading Claim 1. If you do not infringe there is no need to go further.

On the other hand, if Claim 1 is infringed, then the only recourse for a competitor is to demonstrate that Claim 1 is invalid. If this were to be achieved, then the exercise must move to Claim 2, which may be valid, and which may be infringed, or not. Dependent claims that accumulate many limitations from prior claims have a higher probability of being valid, but a lower probability of being infringed. To avoid infringement, all a competitor has to demonstrate is that they do not use every element stipulated within the claim under consideration.

The Rossi Claims

The claims of this particular patent are relatively concise, and are listed as follows:

1. An apparatus for heating fluid, said apparatus comprising a tank, an electrical resistor, and a fuel wafer,

wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated,

wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid,

wherein said fuel wafer includes a fuel mixture that includes reagents and a catalyst,

wherein said electrical resistor is in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst,

wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source,

wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor,

wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride,

wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element,

wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture,

wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.

3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi-layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said electrical resistor.

5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert.

6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein.

7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess.

8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a radiation shield.

9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said reaction in said fuel mixture is at least partially reversible.

10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein said reaction comprises reacting lithium hydride with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas.

Technically, to be valid, claims must not read-on arrangements that do not work. But analysis on this basis is complex. To be addressed on another occasion.

The challenge for competitors wishing to build a competing device that does not infringe is to ensure that their devices are not described by Claim 1. If Claim 1 describes their arrangement, then they will be an infringer. They can avoid infringement by ensuring that their product omits at least one of the features listed in Claim 1.

In a sense, the challenge for a competitor is to invent an arrangement that works but does not fall within the language of Claim 1. On the other hand, the challenge for a patent applicant and his attorney is to produce a valid statement of exclusive rights in Claim 1 that cannot be avoided by competitors wishing to market a competing product.

Analyzing Claim 1 for infringement we note the necessary requirement: “wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride”. Is it essential that lithium be present, apart from being a component of lithium aluminum hydroxide? Did Dr Parkhomov include lithium in his mixture? Apparently not: “640 mg Ni + 60 mg LiAlH4”. This suggests that lithium may not be necessary in order to obtain an LENR effect. But if the presence of elemental lithium enhances the generation of excess energy, then this is an invention in its own right, and merits the granting of patent exclusivity.

On the other hand, if it turns out that elemental lithium need not be present in order to achieve the useful, commercially relevant effect, then this claim has an “loophole”. Patent applicants and their attorneys are expected to labor long and hard in order to draft claims that do not have a “loophole”.

Addressing another possible loophole, if the lithium aluminum hydride serves only as a source of hydrogen, is it essential for the aluminum to be present? Other sources of hydrogen could include magnesium hydride – MgH2; calcium hydride – CaH2; sodium borohydride – NaBH4 and lithium borohydride – LiBH4 as examples. Cf “Thoughts on attending ICCF-19 in Padua by David French”.

We may search Claim 1 for further limitations that may be unnecessarily specific or over limiting. For example, heat is provided to the “fuel” by the presence of an “electrical resistor [which] is in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst”. While this language is so vague as to be difficult to visualize, the disclosure outlines a structure described as follows:

“multilayer fuel wafer 32 includes a heating section 34 sandwiched between two fuel sections 36, 38. The heating section 34 features a central layer 40 made of an insulating material, such as mica, that supports a resistor 42. FIG. 4 shows an exemplary central layer 40 having holes 44 through which a resistive wire 42 has been wound”,

And:

“The entire set of layers is welded together on all sides to form a sealed unit. The size of the wafer 32 is not important to its function. However, the wafer 32 is easier to handle if it is on the order of 1/3 inch thick and 12 inches on each side.”

This gives some understanding as to the meaning of the words in the claim. The disclosure does not necessarily limit the words in the claim. The Disclosure is only intended to be exemplary. Claim 1 clearly stipulates for the presence of an electrical resistor. This could be in the form of resistance wire wrapped around mica sheeting, or it could be a “resistor” of another form.

The claim language is to be read as broadly as the natural meaning of the words and is not necessarily limited by the examples given in the preceding patent disclosure, unless the disclosure requires this. In this case, “electrical resistor”, while not tied to a specific structure, does limit the character and function of this component.

Furthermore, the presence of an electrical resistor is emphasized by the additional limitations stipulating:

“wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source,

“wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor,

“wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture,

“wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.”

Taking this portion of the claim as defining the novel aspect of invention, the invention may really be all about a mechanism for controlling the generation of heat within the wafer.

If the purpose of having a heated core within the wafer is to start an LENR reaction, this might possibly be achieved by simply providing the wafer with a core plate of conductive metal which is heated externally. (Aluminum or copper may spring to mind, but these have a low melting temperature. Aluminum nitride has a melting point of 2200°C). While this might start an LENR reaction, if the use of a resistive heater facilitates controlling the rate or level of the LENR reaction, then that in itself might be a basis for the granting of patent rights. Otherwise, the stipulation for the necessary presence of a “resistor” may also qualify as a “loophole”.

These observations are not exhaustive. They are offered merely as examples. The challenge for competitors is to invent configurations that do not infringe.

This ends Part 1 of the analysis. Further parts of the analysis to follow subsequently will address inferences that can be made from the dependent claims, considerations on the treatment of the nickel, and speculations as to the types of reactions that may be occurring. Additionally, the prospect that further inventions are present in this disclosure, which have not been claimed, and the consequences, will also be explored.

Posted on

The Peak Oil Crisis: Cold Fusion Gets a U.S. Patent

This is a repost of and article originally published on the Falls Church News-Press here.

The Peak Oil Crisis: Cold Fusion Gets a U.S. Patent By Tom Whipple

Sometimes our government moves very slowly. In the case of granting a patent to cold fusion technology, which just might replace fossil fuels, it took 26 years. The odyssey that started with a press conference at the University of Utah back in 1989 and has bumped along below the world’s radar screen ever since, seems to be coming to an end. The cold fusion phenomenon had a brief flurry of notoriety until it was “debunked” by many physicists, a couple of universities, and the U.S. Department of Energy panel. The science fell into disrepute, its discovers were disgraced and went into exile.

Fortunately for mankind, there were a handful of experimenters who were able to reproduce the original experiments which produced anomalous heat, thereby keeping the spark of cold fusion alive, but mostly in obscure laboratories out of the purview of the mainstream press. A decade or so ago some Italian physicists made a major breakthrough which led to devices producing commercial, not just test tube, amounts of heat. This effort culminated in a number of semi-public demonstrations of the technology, which were largely ignored or denounced as conventional wisdom held that “cold fusion” was impossible.

Circa two years ago the Italian cold fusion effort, led by entrepreneur Andrea Rossi, was moved to North Carolina, linked up with a venture capital firm, and well-financed developmental work began on building commercially viable cold fusion reactors. Last February the first prototype, a one-megawatt reactor system producing steam 24 hours a day, was installed for a one-year test in an undisclosed factory somewhere in the US. This device has now been successfully operating for over six months. If all goes well for the remainder of the trial period, a report is scheduled to be issued and heat producing devices will go on sale to the public.

At some point the mainstream media will cotton to the fact that we have been led badly astray as to the viability of this technology and there indeed is an alternative to producing large amounts of energy other than by burning fossil fuels, nuclear fission, hydro, solar and wind. Obviously a technology that can produce large amounts of heat continuously at low cost and without harmful emissions or hazardous waste will catch on quickly. If not in the U.S., then I am sure the Chinese will be happy to help advance the technology.

One of the reasons there has been so much skepticism about cold fusion and Rossi’s reactor in recent years was the secrecy surrounding the inner workings of the device. Much of this secrecy was due to the developer’s inability to obtain a valid international patent on his intellectual property. When the U.S. Department of Energy declared the whole technology a hoax 25 years ago and reaffirmed this decision in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary 10 years later, the U.S. Patent Office adopted the position that it would not patent any device claiming to be based on cold fusion or anything close.

In 2008, Rossi filed for a U.S. patent on his technology, only to have it finally rejected seven years later for lack of sufficient proof that he really had developed a technology that worked. Although Rossi was granted an Italian patent in 2011, nobody thought it offered much protection against copiers of a technology that could easily be worth trillions of dollars should it come to replace fossil fuels someday.

This time around Rossi, and his patent attorneys, took a new approach to gaining the first of what will likely be many patents relating to a technology which could easily turn out to be the most important of the century. Rather than claiming that the device was based on controversial nuclear reactions, the new patent is for a simple “Fluid Heater” that raises the temperature of water by subjecting a mixture of nickel, lithium, and lithium-aluminum-hydride powders to heat. The mixture warms to hundreds of degrees centigrade and begins to produce much more heat energy than is initially applied to the powder by the built-in electric heater. There is a no mention anywhere in the patent of “cold fusion,” nor any kind of nuclear reaction. The patent is silent as to what is causing the excess heat, only saying that it occurs, leaving it to the reader to conclude that so much heat is bring produced that there must be some kind of nuclear reaction taking place – known chemical reactions will not suffice.

The patent breaks new ground in our understanding of how Rossi’s reactor works for in order to obtain his patent protection, he had to reveal the inner workings of the reactor and the composition of the fuel that was inside. The revelation in the patent that there are three separate powders, the proportion of the powders, and that the nickel catalyst must be preheated to drive out any moisture and increase the porosity of the nickel should be of great help to anyone attempting to replicate Rossi’s device. Also revealed in the patent was that each fuel load should be able to run for six months before needing to be replaced. Rossi, however, recently stated that that a single fuel load may run for a year and that the reactor currently being tested can run for long periods of time without the need to turn on the heaters that are run with outside power.

In the past year, numerous replicators have attempted to produce excess heat from devices similar to Rossi’s. One the of these replicators, Alexander Parkhomov at the University of Moscow, has been successful in at least a dozen tests. Other replicators have been able to produce excess heat, but were unable to control their reactors which quickly melted down due to the massive amount of heat being generated. With this new information from the patent, we should soon be seeing many successful replications and put to rest assertions that the technology is a fraud.

For those of us who have been following this technology for over a quarter of a century, the granting of a U.S. patent marks a major milestone in the history of science for it offers the opportunity to get mankind beyond the age of carbon and nuclear fission fuels and all that they have wrought – rogue petro state governments, pollution, global warming, and dangerous radioactive wastes. For now, the major question is whether this or similar technologies can come into widespread use fast enough to slow and then halt the many adverse societal, economic and climatological trends with which we are currently beset.

This is a repost of The Peak Oil Crisis: Cold Fusion Gets a U.S. Patent By Tom Whipple originally published on the Falls Church News-Press here.

Posted on

Patenting Cold Fusion Inventions before the US Patent & Trademark Office – Part 2

The following is Part 2 of a paper prepared By David J French in support of a Poster Presentation at ICCF-18, the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion held in Columbia, Missouri over July 21 – 27, 2013. Part 1 is available at ColdFusionNow here. Part 2 now follows.

Patenting Cold Fusion Inventions before the US Patent and Trademark Office

. Part 2

Treatment of Cold Fusion Inventions before the USPTO

With the USPTO receiving over one half million applications a year, Examiners do not customarily require applicants to file proof that their alleged invention will work as represented. However, the USPTO has classified Cold Fusion and LENR technology in the same category as “perpetual motion”, anti-gravity, time travel, universal Cancer cures and guaranteed cures for baldness. These are considered to be cases where there is doubt that the alleged invention will work. In these fields Examiners are expected to require applicants to demonstrate that the alleged invention actually works. To impose this requirement the Examiner must establish a basis for a legitimate doubt in a communication to the applicant before requiring the applicant to provide proof of operability. Unfortunately, Examiners faced with Cold Fusion applications have in many instances used excessively negative and inflammatory language regarding the history of Cold Fusion science in attempting to place such a doubt on record.

Persons filing patent applications in this field have to be prepared to face a prove-it-works requirement. They do not have to prove that Cold Fusion works per se; they only have to prove that what they represent in their application is true. The disclosure accompanying their patent application must be sufficient to enable ordinary but knowledgeable workers in the field to reproduce what is promised in the patent application. This is not an area where a patent can be obtained on the basis of a prediction or prophetic insight.

Responding to a Prove-it Challenge

The best procedure to follow in answering such a requirement from a US Examiner is to place the original patent disclosure in the hands of an independent agency that will follow the instructions in that document and report-back, hopefully, that they obtained the results as predicted in the patent filing. Such evidence may not rely on after-developed understandings or procedures but must be based on the original document as filed, together with publicly available knowledge existing as of that date.

Relevant message: Make sure your Disclosure is complete when you make your formal patent filing. Be sure the invention works. Don’t promise too much. You may have to prove it!

Example that failed

James H Cook, a retired 80 year old engineer residing in Simi-Valley, California filed an application on August 19, 2009 before the US Patent Office for an invention entitled: “Energy Generation by Nuclear Acoustic Resonance”
This application became abandoned on March 9, 2013 for failure to respond to the US Patent Office Examiner’s first office action of September 9, 2012. Before addressing the reasons for the abandonment the nature of the invention and the filing will be explored. Here is an extract from the Abstract:

“(This invention) solves the problems of reliably initiating a low energy fusion reaction by loading deuterium into palladium metal via the process of electrolysis and by initiating the fusion reaction via the application of nuclear acoustic resonance. Affixed on each side of an electrolysis cell are piezoelectric transducers driven by corresponding frequency synthesizers. Surrounding the cell is a magnetic field produced by a magnetic field generator. The application of nuclear acoustic resonance, i.e. the combined application of an alternating magnetic field and of high frequency acoustic waves causes the deuterium atoms resident in the closely packed palladium metallic lattice to fuse into helium atoms with the consequent release of energy that is inherent to the fusion process.”

This is an example of a Prophetic invention: it is based on a prediction that something will happen rather than on actual tests. No data was given reporting test results. Instead the disclosure stated that this idea arose when the inventor heard about a reported melt-down in a Fleischman and Pons’s original pre-1989 experiment. He surmised that this was due to:

• “a low-level alternating magnetic field in the vicinity of the experiment caused by a transformer (presumably 60 Hz.) on the opposite side of the wall against which the fume hood containing the experiment was mounted”
• “An unrelated experiment in another part of the room was generating ultrasonic acoustic waves in the Megahertz range. It is believed that two frequencies, differing only slightly from each other, are necessary. (See the article, The Truth About DNA, subheading “A past experiment that was incomplete,” published on the Internet at www.kryon.com/k chanelDNA04.html.)”
• “This application of high frequency acoustic waves causes the hydrogen atoms packed within the crystal lattice of the palladium cathode to undergo spin transitions. Upon reaching the Larmor frequency of the hydrogen atoms and achieving resonance, transitions between spin energy levels are generated. This produces a resonance scan. (See Inventor’s Theory of Operation, infra.) It is believed that for reliable initiation of the low energy fusion reaction, the first and second acoustic wave generators (17, 21) must operate at different frequencies. The specific frequencies required remain to be determined by experimentation.”
Note the frank statement that the “specific frequencies required remain to be determined by experimentation”. This was fatal.

The Examiner’s objections

Here is what the Examiner said about this application:

• “…..this “ColdFusion concept is still no more than just an unproven concept or theory.”
• “The general consensus by those skilled in the art and working at these various laboratories is that the fusion conclusion made by Fleischman and Pons was based on experimental error”
• “The general consensus by those skilled in the art is that there is no reputable evidence to support the claims of excess heat production, or the production of fusion by-products such as neutrons, gamma rays, tritium, or helium.”
• (this is) “a field that the general scientific community considers fraudulent.”
• “Since Fleischman and Pons’ 1989 announcement, there has been a continuing stream of publications demonstrating that virtually none of the ’Cold Fusion’ claims are valid.”

The Examiner summed up by reciting that he had provided a reasonable and sufficient basis for challenging the adequacy of the disclosure, concluding that the specification failed to meet the requirements of the Patent Act in terms of enabling workmen to implement the invention as promised.

The Applicant`s dilemma

The requirements for sufficient disclosure allow that it is OK to impose some modest degree of experimentation on future workmen if such experimentation will inevitably produce the right answer without undue effort on the part of an ordinary workman. However in this case, the existence of the specific frequencies that make the invention work is critical: the admission that such parameters remain to be established placed this invention in the category of an “unfinished work”. As well as imposing a prove-it requirement the Examiner rejected this filing for having an insufficient disclosure.

The applicant was given an opportunity to reply. He then decided to abandon his application. Ironically he might have been right. But his application did not meet the required standards and it could not be amended
An inventor can make an invention based upon a prediction, but

• the prediction has to be true
• the prediction has to be supported by instructions on how the benefits of the invention can be delivered reliably by others, once the patent comes to an end.
• Patents do not, however, issue for proposals which are, essentially, a suggestion that others pursue a specific line of research.

Relevance of Examiner`s condemnation of Fleischmann & Pons

The Examiner`s comments regarding Fleischmann & Pons are not relevant in the sense of requiring a response. The Examiner’s criticisms were only presented to justify his requirement that the applicant prove that the invention as described works and that the description of how to make it work was sufficient.
Filing evidence that the invention really works and that the disclosure is enabling would have resulted in an Allowance (so long as the Claims were worded to avoid the Prior Art). Unfortunately the disclosure was irreparably inadequate: it failed to teach the special acoustic frequencies that would initiate the Cold Fusion effect.

Conclusion

It’s very easy to obtain a US patent for Cold Fusion. Just file an application:

For a useful idea that works,

that includes a description on how to make it happen, and which

specifies a feature that is new (done in one or more “claims”).

Easily said, but challenging to fully understand.

David French is a retired patent attorney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more information visit: www.SecondCounsel.com.

Posted on

Andrea Rossi 2nd US Patent Application Published 6 Nov 2014 at USPTO

IMG_9493_portrait1The United States Patent Office has published a further patent application by Andrea Rossi on November 6, 2014.

This application was filed in the US on April 26, 2014 claiming priority from three earlier US applications made on May 2, May 3 and May 10, 2013. No changes can be made to the disclosure as from April 26, 2014. It will still take another year for the US Examiner Tu Ba Hong to search the invention and issue a first Office Action.

This filing was paralleled by a separate application made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty – PCT on April 26, 2014. The PCT filing claims the benefit of the same three US priority filings and probably has the same text as the US application made on the same date. Like the US application no changes can be made to the PCT disclosure as from April 26, 2014.

In both cases the original applicant was Industrial Heat, Inc. of 111 E Hargett St, Ste 300, Raleigh, North Carolina. This name was corrected before the USPTO on October 6, 2014 to IPH International BV of the same address and an assignment of the application to Leonardo Corporation was entered on the same date. The US application as published on November 6th shows Leonardo Corporation of 1331 Lincoln Road, Suite 601, Miami Beach, Florida as the applicant.

While the US filing will not be searched for a year the PCT application as published was accompanied by an International Search Report – ISR. No relevant references were found by the PCT Searcher. Three references were cited as being of interest but not damaging to the application: the 2011 US published application corresponding to Rossi’s first PCT filing, the Fleischmann & Pons PCT application of 1990 as filed by the University of Utah and a Russian reference RU 2267694 by Chabak Aleksandr Fedorovich published January 10, 2006. The PCT search was carried out in Moscow by the International Search branch of the Russian Patent Office. The only class searched was a single international class F24J 1/00. By way of contrast the corresponding US application was tagged for searching in a number of classes, including the International Class for Cold Fusion technology.

Before addressing the content of the disclosure in this new, published, 2nd Rossi US application, some further observations will be made about the “tombstone” data associated with this filing. The American firm acting on behalf of the original applicant, Industrial Heat, Inc., is NK Patent Law of 1917 Water’s Edge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina. This firm has 5 patent professionals, 4 of whom are attorneys and one patent agent. They also have offices in Durham, North Carolina. At the same time, Rossi is pursuing his 1st application in the US using the New York firm of Hedman & Costigan PC. One possible reason for separate firms being involved is that the applicant, Industrial Heat, Inc. in the 2nd filing may have chosen the firm to have carriage of the 2nd application.

The fact that the 2nd application has been transferred from the name of Industrial Heat, Inc., (changed to IPH International BV), to Leonardo Corporation as recently as October, 2014 suggests that the original applicant may have withdrawn from being associated with the application. Leonardo Corporation was originally formed by Andrea Rossi. Presently, there is no reason for Rossi to change the patent firm designated for that 2nd application as no substantial expenses are imminent. It may be that they will agree to continue acting on a pro bono or on a deferred remuneration basis. Certainly it would be cost efficient for Rossi to consolidate the 2 applications in a single firm. It will be interesting to see which one he chooses.

The fact that the search was carried out at the Russian Patent Office is not especially relevant. They can do competent searches. But the limitation of that search to a single class is of more concern. To be fair, searches are supposed to be directed to the subject matter of the claimed invention. This invention has a number of claims that are likely to be amended in the course of examination. It would be highly desirable for the scope of search in respect of this application to be broadened. There is a prospect that this may occur when the US Examiner reaches the US application. But if the US Examiner chooses to reject the application as being based upon the unproven phenomenon of Cold Fusion, he may skimp on the search. That kind of rejection is often an easy way out for US Examiners who are on a tight schedule. There may be a template for rejecting Cold Fusion applications circulating amongst the Examiners at the USPTO.

Now we can turn to the substance of the disclosure in the pending US application.

It is important to appreciate that, with the amendments to the US patent law of 2013, it is now true around the world that no-one can obtain a valid patent for an arrangement that has been “made available to the public” prior to the filing date of an application. Something is “available to the public” if disclosed in any way or if it is “obvious” based upon everything that is known. If you delay filing for a patent then you are playing Roulette with the system.

If it is too late to obtain a patent for a key feature of an arrangement under these rules then no-one can obtain a patent on that specific feature. Keeping a concept secret at that point is likely to only provide a limited period of protection from competition. Secrets will out, eventually.

The fundamental principle of the free market is that everyone is free to copy whatever is not specifically protected under Intellectual Property laws.

Even if Andrea Rossi has discovered an effect for which he deserves a Nobel Prize, he will not be entitled to obtain a patent unless the patent documents as filed have been properly prepared. This means that the invention has to work (also a requirement for a Nobel Prize), and that the disclosure accompanying the application as filed must be sufficient to allow persons skilled in the field to achieve the benefits of the invention. The disclosure must be “enabling”. Then as the applicant he must develop language for one or more patent claims that specify arrangements that contain a feature which is both new and unobvious.

Referring now to the present application, while the claims look ridiculous as a first impression, at the time of filing claims can be merely placeholders. Claim 1 as filed reads:

“1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and further wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.”

Is this new? Is it unobvious? Does it describe something that works? Dynamite in a can along with nickel and water vapour meets this definition when thrown in a fire. Water contains hydrogen, doesn’t it? A claim should include enough context to focus it on a structure that works, is new and is unobvious.

Deficiencies in the claims at the time of filing are not fatal. The issue is whether there is “meat” in the disclosure sufficient to support claims that are valid and have real value. Claims can be presented at a later date so long as they are “supported”, ie, address structures sufficiently outlined in the disclosure at the time of filing. What, therefore, is disclosed in this patent application?

Here is a sample of what is asserted in the disclosure:

“[0046] Experimental investigations of heat production in layered tubular reactor devices according to several embodiments have been conducted. In each example, the reactor device was charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder. An exothermic reaction was initiated by heat from resistor coils inside the reactor device. Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high-resolution thermal-imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor device. Electrical power input was measured with a large bandwidth three-phase power analyzer. While all three experiments yielded interesting results, the reactor device 100 was damaged during the first of the three experiments. The latter two experiments were conducted without equipment failure, and data was collected in the latter two experimental runs for durations lasting 96 and 116 hours, respectively. Heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116-hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set-up without an active charge present in a dummy tubular reactor device. In the case of the dummy reactor device, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electrical input.”

What is the structure that makes this work?

[0048] …… In a reactor device disclosed herein, an exothermic reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst. In the embodiments detailed in these descriptions, thermal energy is produced after the reaction within an inner-most tube of a layered tubular reactor device is activated by heat produced by a set of resistor coils located outside the inner-most tube but inside the layered tubular reactor device.

[0170] Each reactor device, according to these descriptions, includes a reaction chamber in which nickel powder and hydrogen react in the presence of a catalyst……

I don’t want to go any further. These are the only two references to a “catalyst” appearing in the application. No reference is made to a “catalyst” by name in the claims. How can this be an enabling disclosure?

For clarification as to patenting requirements in the United States here is an excerpt from the US Patent Act:

35 U.S. Code § 112 – Specification

(a) In General.— The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

How can the best mode requirement be met when a catalyst is required and that catalyst is not disclosed? How could this application even have been filed?

Others can search through this disclosure for ostensibly useful technical information, but as a patent filing this application will encounter great difficulties.

Top