Updates to Rossi's European Patent Application

On April 15th, an update has been made to the Rossi patent application at the European Patent Office. I don’t know if there is much significant new information in the updated claims section — others with more familiarity with the original may be able to find some.

The new claims can be read here, and the full list of documents associated with the application can be found here.

I understand that patents are updated for tactical reasons as well as technical ones, and so this move may be part of some kind of strategy that I wouldn’t want to begin to speculate about.

  • Peter Roe

    I don’t recall the ‘pulsating’ hydrogen pressure before, or the specification of the refined isotope 62Ni. In fact he has previously skirted around questions relating to any requirement for isotope enrichment, and I think may have denied this suggestion on occasion. The following are possible direct nucleonic pathways for this isotope:

    1H+1H+62Ni => 63Zn + n + 1.974 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 64Zn + 13.835 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 63Cu + 1H + 6.122 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 60Ni + 4He + 9.879 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 4He + 4He + 56Fe + 3.495 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 52Cr + 12C + 3.249 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 48Ti + 16O + 1.057 MeV
    1H+1H+62Ni => 34S + 30Si + 2.197 MeV

    Rossi is now emphasising the boron and lead shielding which would imply both neutrons and gamma being generated then being thermalised in the shielding, so the first reaction above may be involved, plus one or more of the others, and possibly secondary decay products (‘ash’ analysis required).

    • Andre Blum

      both the pulsating hydrogen pressure and the boron shield were in the 2009 version.

      • Peter Roe

        Just my failing memory then, but we do seem to have a clearer picture of the ‘fuel’ and the apparent need for a copper surface, plus the implication that both neutrons and gamma are generated and thermalised.

        • Bob

          There was no mention of the hydrogen being pulsated in the early videos and no mechanism for doing this was shown. It was shown that once the hydrogen was loaded in the reactor the hydrogen supply was disconnected and removed. There appeared to be no way of causing the hydrogen pressure to pulsate in the small copper tube shown in this video;-

          I might add that it is also clear from this video that the rector was not making any steam at all until Mats Lewan looked into the output bucket, at which point the hose starts pulsing and steam starts blowing. But then the sound of the boiling stops when Mats returns to find Rossi tinkering at the controls.
          I also find it really hard to believe that pulsating the hydrogen pressure would have any effect on a reaction of this type unless it was at gigahertz frequencies and I don’t see anything in pictures of the reactor to do this.
          I what I can see, the purpose of the ammendments to the patent application are only for the purpose of keeping the application active.

          • LENR4you

            Claim 3: … hydrogen is injected under a pulsating pressure! It looks like Gorge Miley loading deloading runs: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/nets2012/pdf/3051.pdf .

            In the closed circuit of a stirling engine there are thousands loading deloading cyles per minute. Put the NiH into a Stirling engine and we have a nice engine for small power levels up to maybe 20kWel. This is already patent pending.

        • Omega Z


          Keep in mind that this is his Original Core.
          Copper would never handle the H-cat temps. Even the W-Cat used stainless steel.
          I believe he’s just trying to get the 1st patent thru without the Catalyst. It will work without it.(Celani system)The Catalyst just Greatly Enhances the process.

          If this patent is granted, it will probably be immediately followed with the newer process. Which would be much easier to obtain.

          • Peter Roe


            Yes, presumably the ‘partner’ will make its own arrangements to protect ‘hot cat’ IP. The original system is the property of Leonardo though, and presumably Rossi needs patent protection for this if he wants to sell 1MW container units, or still harbours hopes of being allowed to sell domestic heaters based on the system.

            As some have speculated, the catalyst may well be copper – originally as an admix to the nickel fuel, more recently (and in the application) in the copper wall of the reaction cell.

            The sensible course for AR would seem to be to forget the USPTO and go for patents in other potential markets, principally the EU, Canada and China. The USPTO would probably fold if such patents were to be granted.

          • Omega Z


            This is the European Patent Registry

            Or have I missed something?

    • artefact

      yes, interesting information.

      From page 4 of Rossis reply to the patent office:
      “Accordingly, it is indispensable to use for the mentioned exothermal reactions a nickel isotope having a mass number of 62”
      “Moreover and much more importantly, .. now the further inventive feature that the tube is not a tube of a generic metal, but a tube of copper … is fundamental for achieving the energy generating reactions of the Applicant’s invention”

      • buffalo

        what do you think this means guys.that nickel 62 has to be in contact with copper to do its thing?

        • Peter Roe

          Celani says that Cu/Ni alloys ionise H2 effectively – perhaps the junction point between the copper wall and the nickel particle ‘points’ is where this happens in Rossi’s arrangement? Copper might possibly also increase the density of the electron ‘cloud’ available to nickel particles in contact with it.

          If copper is essential though, then copper nanoparticles might simply have been mixed in with the 62Ni ‘fuel’. As he hasn’t done that (or at least doesn’t say he has), the copper surface itself must be important in some way.

          • artefact

            I remember an analysis of the powder which got in part published. there was 10% of copper in it. Rossi said that came from the tubing. Maybe it was part of powder.
            I think it was the analysis Defkalion got their hands on later.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Copper is interesting. Cuprous hydride is very stable (does not decompose in water like sodium hydride). Cu+ is a soft acid and H- is a soft base by HSAB. Silver hydride (AgH) is even more stable. It would be fun to see what would happen if the copper was replaced with silver.

        • LCD

          From Defkalion
          “We realized also that Ni58, Ni60, Ni62and Ni64 stable isotopes where “willing” to participate in a LENR reaction, whilst Ni61 was not.”

          Ni61 is the only one with a spin that is NOT 0+

    • Dave Lawton

      If the gamma radiation from the core of the reactor is being thermalised in
      the shielding and the heat transfered to the water jacket I reckon it needs a large amount of gamma to heat up the lead to any degree.Is so I would take steps,large ones out of there.
      It many years since I worked with gamma radiation and lead shielding I don`t remember the lead heating up to much to be aware of it.And this was heavy duty gamma.Perhaps some one could illuminate me something is not clear.

      • Peter Roe


        I also worked for a while with a powerful gamma source (60Co) and like you I never noticed any heating of the shielded parts of ‘targets’. Also the ‘shielding’ specified by AR seems rather at odds with previous assertions that only minimal gamma shielding (lead foil) was required. The bench prototypes didn’t seem to have any neutron shielding at all unless the coolant water contained borax or similar, and I don’t recall any statements regarding neutron emission at the lower power levels. I long since lost track of the various factoids released by Rossi, but I seem to remember a flat statement somewhere that no neutrons were emitted by E-Cats.

        On the other hand the GEC GeNiE device (http://www.globalenergycorporation.net/Tech.aspx) is a LENR high intensity neutron source, so neutron emmission seems to be a possibility. Pehaps Rossi’s application represents a development of the prototype that produces more power but is no longer quite so safe, but I agree with you that absorbtion/thermalisation of gamma and/or neutrons seems to be an unlikely primary heat source.

        As a former microbiologist though I’m basically talking out of my, er, hat when discussing particle physics – perhaps one of our resident physicists could explain briefly how the energy released by various theoretical transmutations ends up as heat?

        • Maks

          As i understand the main sourсe of heat is brehstramslung-deceleration of a charged -beta particle when neutron converted back to proton. Rossi have noticed about 60-120 kev photons-it is x-rays. I do not know is it sufficient shielding for compton scattering in Rossis reactor for generation of thermal photons from 60-120 kev x-rays?

          • Peter Roe

            Maks – thanks, that’s helpful. It does indicate there would be ‘leakage’ of both neutrons and x-radiation when these are emitted close to the surface of the fuel mass, but probably very little heat from the shielding.

          • Omega Z


            I suspect the Cat is all about Neutron production- Capture & conversion. Without them there is no excess heat.

            When pushed to COP>200, these Neutrons start escaping at a measurable scale. Hence for safety reasons Rossi keeps the COP>6. Possibly a level assuring None Escape. Or as he say’s Intrinsically Safe.

            I actually spent time composing a few Questions to Rossi about the Mouse & how it was involved with enhancing the Cat. Asked in a Yes/No fashion where either Y/N would provide interesting INFO.

            Dang it. He saw through it. My Post disappeared to la la land. It’s my guess the mouse allows significantly higher COP without sacrificing safety.

            Rossi is good about glossing over certain questions, But I assume he didn’t want these question to appear on his blog regardless- Yes or No.

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            So Rossi’s Cat has been neutered by a mouse?

        • GreenWin

          Peter, the GEC people are somehow JWK Inc. co-assignee of the recent Navy patent (their CEO appears to be JWK.) In their literature they say “Our most recent publications document the ability to efficiently produce high-energy neutrons that are capable of fissioning uranium.”

          They are still generating heat by U-238 fission. And we have no indication of how much radiation is left in their ash. Or what type transmutation takes place (if it does.)

          One other question; how does a publicly funded patent get assigned to a private company JWK?

  • Andre Blum

    It seems one of the other documents posted yesterday is more interesting as it contains Rossi’s reply to the patent office’s rejection.


    • Barry

      Hi Andre, Is this for real. I don’t know much about patent applications but there seems to be some discrepancies when compared to this. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/docs/20120126Transfer-of-Patent-Rights-to-Rossi.pdf
      I’m out of my field here maybe somebody could take a look into the legitimacy. Thanks

      • Hi Barry, Maddalena Pascucci is Rossi’s wife, and for some time things connected with the business were in her name.

        • Omega Z


          The link Andre posted has 6 pages in case you missed it. Upper left corner…

          On Admin- link if you go done the list you’ll see this listed below- 15.02.2013 Grant of extension of time limit (examination procedure) & to the right it shows 6 pages. Same thing.

          Clicking any of the list pulls up a page. Sorry if your already aware. Thought I’d point it out in case anyone missed it.

          These 6 pages are rebuttals to the Patent officer.

          NOTE: At the bottom of the 1st page, It says…

          “The rejection ground is based on the fact that at present cold fusion, which is the basic explanation given in the disclosure for generating energy, is not accepted as mainstream science and technology.”

          Sooo- According to this Argument- No matter what one invents or comes up with, No matter how well it works, If It’s NOT Excepted by Mainstream Science, It Must Not & Can Not Exist.

          Farther down the main list shows- 26.01.2012 Request for transfer of rights – applicant
          Rossi’s wife transferring title to Leonardo.

          • Peter Roe

            In other words, Rossi is up against the continuing USPTO stonewall and may as well give up on that particular front, and instead go for patents in Canada, China, the EU etc. with a fresh (and better) description.

          • Blanco69

            Agreed. Not to mention the Hot Cat and the Rat Cat which by definition will require separate patent applications.

          • Omega Z

            Ummm Maybe new patents on the New Apparatus.

            But I’m not sure Rossi is trying to patent the device itself, but the mechanisms involved in triggering the reactions.
            Which would probably be the same regardless of E-cat version.

        • georgehants

          Cold Fusion Now
          The Technology Gateway and Spinoff Magazine by NASA

          • LB

            it looks like old news from 2012
            There is no new video on the technology gateway. Only the one from 2012

  • Blanco69

    Yes Peter,

    It’s been a while since we had to go over this old stuff. See below from Hank Mills (When Hank & Sterling volunteered to set up a web site for Rossi)

    “In the tube that composes the reactor core, a small quantity of specially processed, micron grain sized, nickel powder is placed. The nickel powder has been enriched in two specific isotopes (Ni-62 and Ni-64) via a proprietary and cheap method that only adds 10% to the final cost of the raw material. Enriching the nickel powder in Ni-62 and Ni-64 is important, because it is these two isotopes that undergo the most nuclear reactions. All reagents and resulting products, Cu-63 and Cu-65, are stable.

    Once the nickel powder is placed in the reactor core, an even smaller quantity of catalyst material is inserted into the same metal tube. Without the catalyst, the E-Cat could not produce practical levels of output. The catalyst is composed of one or more chemical elements that are not radioactive, rare, or expensive. In fact, the cost of the catalyst is considered to be insignificant.

    Next, the reactor core is filled with a small quantity of pressurized hydrogen gas, from an external canister. The pressure of the hydrogen gas is a key factor in moderating the intensity of the reactions that take place in the reactor core. Higher hydrogen pressure increases the rate at which nuclear reactions take place, and lower hydrogen pressure reduces the rate.”


    Not sure how much detail the above came from Hank or Rossi. However, it’s broadly consistent with new patent claims. I can’t recall ever seeing or reading anything that could be considered as “pulsating” though. What I am surprised at is that Rossi (or his represetative) is trying to shine up a patent app that should’ve been scrapped and rewritten by now.

    • Peter Roe

      As it still doesn’t specify the catalyst, the patent remains seriously incomplete. As it seems to refer to the bench prototype, there is (or was) still the matter of the external band ‘heater’ which obviously couldn’t perform any heating function through the water jacket, and may have contained a coil acting as an oscillating field generator or RF antenna. If the reaction rate is controlled by modulating H2 pressure, there would also need to be some description of the sensing/controlling system I would have thought.

      As you say, this application should have been scrapped long ago, and either replaced by a full disclosure of just withdrawn if Rossi doesn’t want his secret ingredients known.

      • Rob Woudenberg

        In the new claims Rossi has dropped the term ‘catalyst’. Is Ni62 the actual catalyst?

        • Torbjörn

          No, the E-Cat works without the catalyst according to Sven Kullander, so he does not need to mention the catalyst.

          • GreenWin

            This is very interesting.

          • Peter Roe

            Perhaps by specifying a copper reaction cell he is in fact mentioning the catalyst?

  • Frank

    There is something not very intuitive about using NI62:
    “NI62 has the highest binding energy per nucleon of any isotope for any element, when including the electron shell in the calculation. More energy is released forming this isotope than any other, although fusion can form heavier isotopes.” Wikipedia …
    I would assume it would be much more efficient to start with Isotopes with a lower binding energy, cause this way you could harverst more energy. And this makes NI62 a very stable element, just regarding energy. But of course, the reactions has to take place in the first place. I don’t think this is a coincidence. Something about the “highest binding energy per nucleon” makes this isotope predisposed for LENR Reactions (enabling the creation on neutrons nearby and than capturing those neutrons according to Widom-Larson)

    one more thing: “The high binding energy of nickel isotopes in general makes nickel an “end product” of many nuclear reactions (including neutron capture reactions) “accoring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-62
    I know there is a difference, because NI62 is used as the starting point by A.R. , but nevertheless the mentioning of neutron capturing seems quite interesting to me …

    • In general, proton capture might compete with alpha emission. Maybe there is a catalytic cycle, for example Ni62+p -> Cu63, Cu63+p -> Ni60+He4, Ni60+p -> Ni61, Ni61+p -> Ni62 as net reactions. In other words, maybe stable Ni62 tends to catalyse hydrogen fusing into helium. Perhaps for less stable starting nuclei the process would tend to drift away rather than circle around.

  • Andre Blum

    Two observations:

    1. The changes made to the claims seem necessary to have it stand out more from prior art. But in themselves they are not sufficient for the patent to be granted. At the root of the dispute seems to be the fact that cold fusion is not accepted as mainstream science or technology, exactly as Rossi argues in his reply to the examiner. I now feel that this is the sole reason Rossi has reluctantly allowed independent 3rd party validation. It is the only way to get the patent process rolling again.

    2. Somewhere in 2011, someone on one of the forums or newsgroups suggested that Rossi may have stumbled upon this invention by sheer luck, and actually by amateurism. He or she argued: Where no-one in their right mind would use copper plumbing for a cold fusion reactor because of its inability to contain hydrogen without leaks, Rossi may have done so, and accidentally hit the jackpot. In his newest version of claims, the fact that the reactor tube needs to be copper has now made it up to claim 1, and in his letter this is pointed out as being an essential factor.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      “no-one in their right mind would use copper plumbing for a cold fusion reactor because of its inability to contain hydrogen without leaks”

      I’m no expert but I seem to recall that copper is one of the preferred metals to contain hydrogen.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        from NickelPower

        brucefast Says:
        April 26, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
        What about the material of the container? I understand that hydrogen gas cannot be contained by steel. What about glass? I know that glass risks shattering in the event of BOOM, but it also allows people to see in, which is cool.


        Simon Derricutt replied:
        April 27, 2012 at 1:40 am |
        Bruce – Aluminium, Copper or Brass are good, and have low diffusion rates for Hydrogen with little embrittlement. Stainless steel is reasonable, but the Hydrogen will slowly pass through it and make the steel brittle – not a good choice for a long-term machine (see Defkalion’s and Rossi’s devices, which seem to be stainless steel) but OK for the length of time you’ll be running this experiment. Stainless steel will also take part in the reaction – a bit like building a stove out of hardwood.

        Glass such as Pyrex will be fine, but if there’s an explosion it will shatter. You could use glass-coated steel as maybe the best material, but it’s somewhat expensive to get the defect-free coating needed. I’d use Brass or a similar Copper alloy as the container, since it can be easily machined and is stable. If you want to run really hot, then we’ll have to find something else, maybe fused Alumina.


        • Peter Roe

          As usual I am too bone idle to trawl through Rossi’s past statements, but I have the impression that it was stated that in the bench prototypes, the reaction cell was of stainless steel. Perhaps the ‘catalyst’ at this time was copper dust, but a later move to a copper cell may have eliminated the need for this additive, and serendipitously resulted in a major improvement in performance (as others have speculated).

  • GreenWin

    OT, but fascinating is awakening of green movement to the New Fire Cold Fusion paradigm. Gather Sustainability reprinted the Hambling Wired Magazine article “Cold Fusion Research Continues…” indicating a growing acceptance amongst hard core greens. We can expect more of this “Green Fusion” as the inevitable sinks in.

    Gather Inc. and Gather.com are New England’s largest participatory news site. Their reach has now surpassed CNBC.com, CBS.com, PBS.com, iVillage.com and USAToday.com. Gather’s reach has over 7 million monthly unique visitors (2010.) http://sustainability.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981870212

  • GreenWin

    Published in the open General Science Journal:

    Sargoytchev, Stoyan Sarg “Physics of Cold Fusion With the BSM–SG Atomic Models”


    • artefact

      good find GW

      • artefact

        From the text:

        “The year 2011 marked a significant advance in cold fusion this time coming from Italy. The research was pioneered by Francesco Piantelli in 1989, who observed a strange thermal effect at low temperature in a sample of nickel in hydrogen atmosphere. The research was further extended for almost two decades by interuniversity program. It was later continued by Sergio Focardi and Andrea Rossi that led to development of a prototype of a commercial cold fusion reactor, called E-cat, patented by Rossi”

    • Sanjeev

      Its good to see more “mainstream” publications.
      This one seems to be more on the theoretical side of it, but looks interesting.

    • Karl

      I find his theories formulated in the BSM (Basic Structure of Matter) about micro and macro space extremely interesting. The BSM approach offers for example a plausible explanation to virtually all known enigmas in the QM.

  • pg


    • Lukedc

      Who knows when the report will be out.
      If it’s not being published online and is being delivered by print media, we should see the bullet point May highlights circulating online within the next few days.
      That is if it’s coming out in one of the mainstream science mags.

  • georgehants

    The next big utility transformation
    The ‘problem’ of free energy

    • Peter Roe

      Although they are not mentioning cold fusion this article does illustrate how a so called ‘free market’ can be completely corrupted by government, speculators and corporations. We should at best expect CF power to be only marginally cheaper at household consumer units than currently, by the time all concerned have skimmed every cent they can gouge out.

      • Omega Z


        At the start, there will be Capitol costs for the new system. The Capitol costs to dismantle the Old. But Competition will eventually force most of the savings to the Consumer.

        That Said, I sometimes forget that Geography plays a Big Roll in Costs. I’m sure from your point of View that some of my posts seem way off. Maybe even Crazy.

        As an Example using USD$- I presently pay $3.36 a gallon for Gasoline. UK pays Equivalent of $8+. That Difference is mostly Taxes. $5 verses .60 cents U.S. The UK chooses to have a high fuel tax to pay for Government programs. Hence in the U.S./ Charging a 3 cent per mile road tax isn’t that hard to sell for road repair, Etc. In the UK it’s more complex. It has a compilation of taxes on fuel for many things.

        According to posters from Australia, They pay .40 cents per Kw plus some other fee. Dam, I’d have to give up a few things. I pay 12 cents Per Kw. Or about 6 cents/energy- 3 cents Carry/line fees- 3 cents Federal/State/Local taxes.
        Note: “A city 60 miles from me just negotiated a 5.5 cent per Kwh Energy fee.”

        Anyway- The Energy cost difference in the U.S. verses UK or Australia is how it’s taxed. So with LENR it would appear to be much easier for the U.S. Government to transfer these loses to new taxes elsewhere.

        I notice some people post that Solar energy is becoming competitive with Fossil fuel. If I was paying 40 cents per Kw, I would probably agree even with it’s dependability problem. But at 12 cents current rate I have to disagree with them. Of course when they make these claims, they tend to exclude a lot of additional cost, so there still not competitive even figuring 40 cents a Kw.

        • Peter Roe


          What you say is true, a lot depends on where you live. In rip-off Britain (as well as Australia and many places in Europe) non-income taxes are so high they distort all markets out of shape, but this is particularly true for energy markets.

          Governments have become very dependent on this easy money, and will fight like polecats to tax cold fusion at similar levels. In addition, the UK govt. is very close to committing UK consumers to enormous electricity price increases (currently about 17-22 cents US per kWh) to pay EDF to build new fission reactors.

          We have a very long history of being run by idi0ts and are not about to break with tradition.

          • Omega Z

            Yeah, it’s pretty much the same everywhere. Just done in a different fashion.

            In the States we have what I call hidden taxes. Mostly people just Ignore. People see a 25 cent tax on the Monthly bill & it’s like ahh, that’s nothing & pay it no never mind.

            There trick is they have half a dozen of these & first thing you know it makes up 25% of the cost. We place All blame on the Utility.
            If all these Extra fees were listed as a single Item, people would notice.

            Don’t recall the Exact labels, but there’s 3 taxes on our Utility Bill None of which amount to much individually.

            But We don’t have a Carbon/Co2 tax Officially & they talk about adding that. In reality, the 3 I mention are a Carbon Tax. Just labeled differently. Our Politicians practice Black Magic. 🙂 or is it 🙁

          • Chris I

            By the end of page 4 I just quit reading. If I ever need a patent consultant, I won’t engage the services of Cicogna for sure.

            Aside from several details, he says the Application allows those skilled in the art to make an e-cat work. So? Why all the fuss and doubt? Let’s make one and try it out ourselves!!!!

            Can we or can’t we? Without knowing his 11 herbs & spices? I don’t think the application is good enough and if Rossi hopes to just keep his secret forever, either he is an optimist or his e-cat will be used far less than it ought to be (even for his purpose of profit).

    • GreenWin

      In a previous post I rather boldly commented on the successful commercialization of LENR. These articles confirm that post. What needs to happen hereafter is the steady transition from centralized, transmitted energy, to distributed energy resources (aka DER.)

      “The utilities have to change their model, and the regulators of the utilities have to change their model of regulating,” Thomasson muses. “When you’re reinventing the regulatory approach, maybe you could throw it all out and start over nationally.”

      Thomasson is starting to see the light. The start over will arrive from a new energy legislation designed to oversee the dismantling of utility resources. Old nukes, coal and NG central plants will be decommissioned over 15-20 years; DERs (LENR)will be installed during the same period replacing most of the grid demand.

      Undetermined at this stage is how DERs will be interconnected to provide backup-uninterrupted services to districts and residences. What is clear is the market will provide many of these solutions without need for government intervention. Government will best serve the public by overseeing and funding the decommissioning process.

      Eventually someone has to take down the 600,000 miles of transmission cable across North America (EU, Asia, etc) and return that land to natural state. Likewise with dams and nukes and fossil plants. It’s a big job. Big enough to keep the thousands of present energy jobs intact for the most. Employee transition itself is an important area for study and recommendation.

  • GreenWin

    The newly issued cold fusion patent for the U.S. Navy et al, will go far to support Rossi’s updates. Be sure, they are working hand in hand. And that is very nice to see.

    • dsm


      If you are saying that Andrea is able to alter his original patent, I don’t believe that is possible. The patent system allows a patent to be filed but once it has been the only changes allowed are to clarify claims made, or to remove any claims not accepted or not explained adequately enough.

      The reason the patent office acts this way is to prevent a person filing a patent then within the usual 2-3 years or so before full approval, the person tries to introduce new claims that may be borrowed from someone else’s recent work or a newer invented aspect of the invention. The problem is that allowing changes to the claims to occur means someone can claim an earlier priority on what may be a newer invention or borrowings from some other inventors work.

      Andrea has filed new claims that don’t match the original ones (i.e. Pulsing injection of H). Plus his response seeks to tell the EPO that their process is wrong (not a very smart thing to do) in the matter of science that is unproven. All the LENR related patents that have got through USPTO and EPO never claim the energy is ‘Cold Fusion’ or nuclear. Piantelli’s patents that were approved are examples of how to get the claims approved without violating this still enforced rule.

      I believe Andrea will not be able to get past this matter of nuclear source for the energy in his current patent wording.


      • GreenWin

        “All the LENR related patents that have got through USPTO and EPO never claim the energy is ‘Cold Fusion’ or nuclear. Piantelli’s patents that were approved are examples of how to get the claims approved without violating this still enforced rule.”

        It is significant to USPTO that the following statement is now entered into patent law:

        “Using the Pd/D co-deposition process, radiation emission and tritium production were documented. The results indicated that the reactions were nuclear in origin and that they occurred in the subsurface.” Document Type and Number: United States Patent 8419919 (U.S. Navy, JWK Inc. 4/16/2013)

        Acceptance by USPTO that such reactions are nuclear in origin opens heretofore closed gates. U.S. Patent law has changed as of March 15, 2013. It is a whole new world.

        • dsm


          Very informative point. Thanks. But in the case of Andrea’s EPO patent application, I fear there are just to many grounds for rejection.

          Interestingly, Defkalion claim they won’t be filing patents until ready to commercialize. Can’t quite see the logic in that as few big businesses will pass over millions of $s to anyone for ip that isn’t protected. That is tantamount to giving the money away if the ip can be copied by anyone. It is also seen in big business as financing your competitors.

          It will be interesting to take a really close look at this Navy patent.



          • I don’t remind that.

            Maybe I missed that point.
            The last claims of Defkalion on patents is that they have already filed 6 patents (said this summer), with only one on the nickel powder itself.

            As you say, waiting for product to be ready to industrialization is not the usual nor advisable way.
            David French, expert in patent,, explained that on the opposite you should file very often, and finally ask many of the patents to be merged in one big.

          • GreenWin

            It is interesting DSM. JWK Inc the co-assignee of the Navy patent is partner or parent to Global Energy Corporation (GEC)
            GEC, headquartered in Annadale VA, is focused on the development and commercialization of transformational Hybrid Nuclear Energy Solutions. They claim to use LANR. But their Genie reactor is an U-238 burning fission plant. http://www.globalenergycorporation.us/

          • GreenWin

            “But in the case of Andrea’s EPO patent application, I fear there are just to many grounds for rejection.”

            In fact the EPO patent examiner Ioanna Cristescu, is employed by a German consulting firm that works for ITER. This conflict of interest has been flagged and will reset the EPO Examiner “clock.” It also shines light on EPO management and its twisted ethical bounds.

  • Sanjeev


    Found this on Vo.

    From the discussion it looks like a method of cold transmutation with Pd and D2O.

    Not enough to make waves in the news, but an indication that many people are working in the field behind the curtains.

    • Peter Roe

      Interesting, but more of a lab experiment than a device. It seems to be a variation of the P&F cell with different electrolytes and anode/cathode compositions. The effect of a magnetic field on the reaction is interesting.

      Once again the preferred phrase for the process is “a method for generating particles”!

  • Iggy Dalrymple

    GreenWin: “One other question; how does a publicly funded patent get assigned to a private company JWK?”

    It’s my understanding that most govt agencies are mandated by law to encourage private companies to commercialize their inventions (except when release of IP would aid the enemy). I think the govt retains a certain % royalty rights.