US Patent Office Issues Final Rejection of Rossi’s E-Cat Patent Application [Update: Rossi Makes Statement on Patent]

Thanks to Barty for reporting about the following:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a ‘final rejection’ for Andrea Rossi’s application for a patent for his E-Cat.

In September, 2014, patent examiner Sean Burke had issued a ‘non final rejection’, which Rossi had appealed, and sent more information to support his claim, but this new information was apparently not convincing. Rossi had sent to the patent office a copy of the Lugano Report in January 2015, along with this article by Hank Mills, in the hope that it would support his claims, but apparently it was not convincing enough evidence — the examiner considers the E-Cat to be ‘inoperable’

Below is a PDF explaining he final rejection document where examiner Burke explains his reasoning for not granting the patent. All documents pertaining to this application can be accessed by going to < a href="http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair">http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair, and entering the number 12/736,193 in the application number search box (after entering the captcha)

USPTO Final Rejection Rossi Patent

I’m not sure where the US patent application goes from here. The action is listed as being final, but the applicant has the legal right to reply to this decision within three months, and I suppose Rossi’s attorneys might use that right to appeal, but unless new information can be presented, I doubt the examiner will change his decision. For now it seems that Rossi and Industrial Heat will continue their current commercialization strategy without the protection of a US patent.

UPDATE: I received the following statement from Andrea Rossi.

Dear Frank:
About the action of the USPTO related to our patent application 12/736,193:
we have 60 days for our consideration to defend the application. Our action is on course by our patent attorney.
LENR are very difficult to patent, but we will continue to defend the application because we believe it is correct.
In two months we will make all necessary to defend our position in the USPTO.
Warm Regards,
Andrea Rossi

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Ahhh the ups and downs of cold fusion…

  • Enrique Ferreyra

    Ahhh the ups and downs of cold fusion…

  • JDM

    And three months will not be enough to furnish the one year prototype 1MW data.
    I wonder if AR will finally reveal the secret sauce?

    • NT

      If the Rossi/IH industrial plant started initial operations in November 2014, then they would have well over six months of (hopefully) successful and verifiable LENR operations. That should be more than enough evidence for a patent of same if all evidence of the new plant operations were presented to the patent officer – one would think so anyway unless the patent office is determined to kill the cold fusion (LENR) concept in the USA…

  • JDM

    And three months will not be enough to furnish the one year prototype 1MW data.
    I wonder if AR will finally reveal the secret sauce?

    • NT

      If the Rossi/IH industrial plant started initial operations in November 2014, then they would have well over six months of (hopefully) successful and verifiable LENR operations. That should be more than enough evidence for a patent of same if all evidence of the new plant operations were presented to the patent officer – one would think so anyway unless the patent office is determined to kill the cold fusion (LENR) concept in the USA…

  • Gerrit

    This outcome is the reason Rossi couldn’t risk revealing the secret sauce. The whole world would know how to do it, but Rossi wouldn’t have a patent.

  • Gerrit

    This outcome is the reason Rossi couldn’t risk revealing the secret sauce. The whole world would know how to do it, but Rossi wouldn’t have a patent.

  • Mike

    Does anyone know, if in the future, someone else can get the same patent approved assuming the Patent office can be convinced in other ways, with say, a working industry? I would hate to see someone else get the patent just because his first application was denied. If someone else could get the patent in the future, the rights ought to revert to Rossi.

  • Owen Geiger

    More content for the Rossi cold fusion documentary. Time to get more popcorn.

  • Gerrit

    I wonder how IH will respond to this.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope that getting a patent was not a part of the agreement between IH and Rossi.
    Would an 1 MW plant be convincing enough for Sean Burke, or should it be an 1GW plant?

    • Sanjeev

      I think that a quick visit to the 1 MW plant with the patent officer can fix the issue. But I suspect this won’t happen.

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope that getting a patent was not a part of the agreement between IH and Rossi.
    Would an 1 MW plant be convincing enough for Sean Burke, or should it be an 1GW plant?

    • Alexvs

      Even a 1 Kw plant would be enough if working.

      • If US patent protection is necessary to IH’s strategy, then they may need to build one (working portable demo unit) but instead of submitting it to Burke, take it to an EU country and apply for a patent there, where there is a more pragmatic approach. They would then need to make this patent Europe-wide by applying through the European Patent Convention (EPC), and then go through the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to obtain world-wide protection through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT.

        I’m not sure how much protection this would give in the ‘states vs. a ‘proper’ US patent, but it is probably a whole lot better than nothing – assuming a suitably specific and well-written patent is obtained in the first place. However, in view of the degree of disclosure required, IMHO they would be better served going down the ‘trade secret’ path and simply holding onto the core IP for as long as possible. At some point they would probably need to place the IP in the public domain in order to prevent anyone else more skilled or lucky in patent application obtaining patents that could potentially lock IH out of their own IP.

        • GreenWin

          Rossi still holds an Italian patent which may be recognized by WIPO and or EPC. But I agree, Trade Secret is recognized and enforceable world wide more than certain patents. The Pharma industry has successfully used Trade Secret to protect “secret sauces” while patenting less proprietary elements of an invention.

          However, this application establishes an excellent paper trail of Rossi’s proprietary designs and materials. If the industrial prototype field test concludes successfully a new patent will be filed covering broader theory and proprietary components. Meanwhile, replications will continue with increasing success and dozens of new patent apps will pile up at the USPTO door – each further evidence something in the Standard Model is not quite right.

    • Sanjeev

      I think that a quick visit to the 1 MW plant with the patent officer can fix the issue. But I suspect this won’t happen.

  • theBuckWheat

    It is my hope that this prods Rossi to publish more data and to allow more third-party verification.

    • you probably have a good position.

      It seems that today, for fast innovation, paten hinder and don’t promote innovation.

      http://singularityhub.com/2015/03/12/heres-why-patents-are-innovations-worst-enemy/

      Troll are the new evil, but even normal patent owner don’t really promote innovation in reality.

      LENR-Cities for LENRG promotes OpenIP

      here I found few description

      http://jeremydebeer.ca/intellectual-property/

      http://www.adiengineering.com/open-ip

      ADI Engineering was founded in 1990 on a progressive model of Open IP that is the cornerstone of our entire customer engagement approach. Unlike traditional Single Board Computer (SBC) vendors, Original Design Manufacturers (ODMs), or OEMs, for over 20 years ADI has built its business based on a unique model of IP openness and customer-directed manufacturing for everything we design – even for our standard products.

      Everything ADI designs – even our standard products and customer-specific derivatives based on them – is available for licensing and direct customer manufacturing.

      ADI builds and delivers product using world-class manufacturers including Sanmina-SCI. But Open IP allows ADI customers to build ADI standard or custom products themselves, either directly at ADI’s manufacturing partners or at customer-preferred factories. By giving customers total control of their designs and the manufacturing of their products, Open IP simplifies and shortens supply chains, reduces margin stacking, provides assured long-term production free from third-party risks, and dramatically improves customer competitiveness.”

      Open IP, not Open Bar

  • theBuckWheat

    It is my hope that this prods Rossi to publish more data and to allow more third-party verification and replication. His name is now so well-connected with this phenomena that no commercial interest will be able to steal it from him. In fact they will have to seek his endorsement so they can take advantage of the safety studies he has already conducted. So, by that reasoning, the issue of product liability and regulatory oversight may render the issue of patent almost moot.

    • you probably have a good position.

      It seems that today, for fast innovation, paten hinder and don’t promote innovation.

      http://singularityhub.com/2015/03/12/heres-why-patents-are-innovations-worst-enemy/

      Troll are the new evil, but even normal patent owner don’t really promote innovation in reality.

      LENR-Cities for LENRG promotes OpenIP

      here I found few description

      http://jeremydebeer.ca/intellectual-property/

      http://www.adiengineering.com/open-ip

      ADI Engineering was founded in 1990 on a progressive model of Open IP that is the cornerstone of our entire customer engagement approach. Unlike traditional Single Board Computer (SBC) vendors, Original Design Manufacturers (ODMs), or OEMs, for over 20 years ADI has built its business based on a unique model of IP openness and customer-directed manufacturing for everything we design – even for our standard products.

      Everything ADI designs – even our standard products and customer-specific derivatives based on them – is available for licensing and direct customer manufacturing.

      ADI builds and delivers product using world-class manufacturers including Sanmina-SCI. But Open IP allows ADI customers to build ADI standard or custom products themselves, either directly at ADI’s manufacturing partners or at customer-preferred factories. By giving customers total control of their designs and the manufacturing of their products, Open IP simplifies and shortens supply chains, reduces margin stacking, provides assured long-term production free from third-party risks, and dramatically improves customer competitiveness.”

      Open IP, not Open Bar

  • The critics are mixed from good to BS.

    The critic on the emissivity is good.
    The critic on the 99% isotopic shift is pure BS. in fact he is accusing manipulation without stating, and without evidence. Moreover his reasoning is based on the free assumption that nickel is the fuel, as it may be something else.

    Patent office have to protect public from clear BS perpetuum mobile, but it is no a police of engineering. if it does not work, the patent is to be without value, that is all.
    There is no serious risk to grand a patent on non functional device… why allow unproven accusation to be stated, unproven artifact, while there is dubious but possibly right tests…

    here the reviewer behave as a cowboy , it is mind police, mind guard as we say in groupthink theory.

    anyway Rossi’s patent is bunk, but for others reasons.
    it is bad because it does not allow someone competent in LENR to replicate.
    That is the only but absolute reason not to grant that patent.

    My vote is to fire the examiner and reform USPTO.
    Then dump that bad patent.

    the recent IH patent is much better.

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      “on the free assumption that nickel is the fuel”

      I think the patent states a device that transmute nickel into cupper.

      • good popint which rasie the bad quality of the patent.

        but the examniner say the reactor is unreal not because it does not produce copper, which is true, but because its produce 99% shifted Ni which he assume is the produce of the combustion.. while it is clear that if it was fraud, it would be copper, and not 99%.

        this result in itself shows there is nuclear reaction, even if not the one claimed by rossi.
        As david French said many time you should not put theory in a patent.

        this patent is bunk, but the examiner too.

  • The critics are mixed from good to BS.

    The critic on the emissivity is good.
    The critic on the 99% isotopic shift is pure BS. in fact he is accusing manipulation without stating, and without evidence. Moreover his reasoning is based on the free assumption that nickel is the fuel, as it may be something else.

    Patent office have to protect public from clear BS perpetuum mobile, but it is no a police of engineering. if it does not work, the patent is to be without value, that is all.
    There is no serious risk to grand a patent on non functional device… why allow unproven accusation to be stated, unproven artifact, while there is dubious but possibly right tests…

    here the reviewer behave as a cowboy , it is mind police, mind guard as we say in groupthink theory.

    anyway Rossi’s patent is bunk, but for others reasons.
    it is bad because it does not allow someone competent in LENR to replicate.
    That is the only but absolute reason not to grant that patent.

    My vote is to fire the examiner and reform USPTO.
    Then dump that bad patent.

    the recent IH patent is much better.

    • Enrique Ferreyra

      “on the free assumption that nickel is the fuel”

      I think the patent states a device that transmute nickel into cupper.

      • good point which raise the bad quality of the patent.

        but the examiner say the reactor is unreal not because it does not produce copper, which is true, but because its produce 99% shifted Ni which he assume is the produce of the combustion.. while it is clear that if it was fraud, it would be copper, and not 99%.

        this result in itself shows there is nuclear reaction, even if not the one claimed by rossi.
        As david French said many time you should not put theory in a patent.

        this patent is bunk, but the examiner too.

  • John

    The application filled for this patent was like a Swiss cheese, full of holes, and I was waiting this result long time ago. But this is important result, it means, that LENR is not suitable to issue patent and if Parkhomov / Rossi are not fooling us the door is open to be chaotic unregulated sector…Caos is specially good for China and India, Iran, North Korea. And we can do whatever we want with this new kind of energy… Good news !!! Rossi is already Rich with 14.000.000,00 Usd in pocket and IH directors are not in good mood today I can make people sure about it. I think for IH is sad news, for us researchers is a VERY good news.

  • John

    The application filled for this patent was like a Swiss cheese, full of holes, and I was waiting this result long time ago. But this is important result, it means, that LENR is not suitable to issue patent and if Parkhomov / Rossi are not fooling us the door is open to be chaotic unregulated sector…Caos is specially good for China and India, Iran, North Korea. And we can do whatever we want with this new kind of energy… Good news !!! Rossi is already Rich with 14.000.000,00 Usd in pocket and IH directors are not in good mood today I can make people sure about it. I think for IH is sad news, for us researchers is a VERY good news.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It does not look good for the USPTO when they call Alumina, Aluminum in the rejection sentence 4 – especially seeing as they should know it would melt well below even our determination of the likely external temperature.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Largely, the rejection of the Lugano report is fair, sadly for Levi et al. It is a great shame that basic empirically derived verifications of the reactor were not done, or for that matter, given that they apparently had 3 units, why they did not do a non-fueled control side by side is or at least sequentially is difficult to understand.

      • Zack Iszard

        If they had run a time-parallel “dummy” control with separate optical equipment, the objection would be that the equipment was not properly calibrated. If that control test was imaged with the same imaging equipment (two reactors at once on “film”), the objection would be interference. If the control had been run sequentially, the objection would be that measured emissivity had changed the day of the control run, or that the control reactor shell was substantially different from the test reactor. If they had used calorimetry, flaws in design or interpretation would be the go-to, instead of admitting something extraordinary is occurring. Etc.

        As long as the Coulomb barrier can be invoked (the examiner’s dogmatic belief is exemplified by the statement “no element overcomes the natural Coulomb repulsion between two nuclei”), justifications based on poor lab practices, incompetence, or deception will take precedence over “the physicists were wrong”. The examiner’s job is not to attempt to rewrite quantum physics, and erring on the side of the group is the least psychologically troublesome. Nothing surprising here!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Option 1 you list would be pointless, agreed.

          Option 2 and 3 would have rendered it difficult to use some of the objections the examiner made as it would render them null and void (and would have also saved the MFMP a lot of work).

          • bfast

            I believe that you are approximately correct. I believe that once it is proved, Rossi will be able to sue — not as a $ figure for damages, but sue to have the patent instated.

      • Axil Axil

        As a community, we live and learn. As time goes on, the experiments and demos get better and more air tight. They may eventually become undeniable.

      • Omega Z

        Bob
        I think you know what would have been claimed had they used a different reactor as a dummy.

        I think you also know why they didn’t take it to the same high temps in the dummy run.

        It’s also My Opinion that these reactors are strictly 1 use disposable research reactors. I think the final product will be also, but of a highly different design.

        • Bob Greenyer

          As I said in my Moscow presentation, you can start them and regulate their output within bounds, but stop it and you can’t get it running again, well, I have not seen evidence for that in Ni+H systems claiming excess heat.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It does not look good for the USPTO when they call Alumina, Aluminum in the rejection sentence 4 – especially seeing as they should know it would melt well below even our determination of the likely external temperature.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Largely, the rejection of the Lugano report is fair, sadly for Levi et al. It is a great shame that basic empirically derived verifications of the reactor were not done, or for that matter, given that they apparently had 3 units, why they did not do a non-fueled control side by side is or at least sequentially is difficult to understand.

      • Zack Iszard

        If they had run a time-parallel “dummy” control with separate optical equipment, the objection would be that the equipment was not properly calibrated. If that control test was imaged with the same imaging equipment (two reactors at once on “film”), the objection would be interference. If the control had been run sequentially, the objection would be that measured emissivity had changed the day of the control run, or that the control reactor shell was substantially different from the test reactor. If they had used calorimetry, flaws in design or interpretation would be the go-to, instead of admitting something extraordinary is occurring. Etc.

        As long as the Coulomb barrier can be invoked (the examiner’s dogmatic belief is exemplified by the statement “no element overcomes the natural Coulomb repulsion between two nuclei”), justifications based on poor lab practices, incompetence, or deception will take precedence over “the physicists were wrong”. The examiner’s job is not to attempt to rewrite quantum physics, and erring on the side of the group is the least psychologically troublesome. Nothing surprising here!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Option 1 you list would be pointless, agreed.

          Option 2 and 3 would have rendered it difficult to use some of the objections the examiner made as it would render them null and void (and would have also saved the MFMP a lot of work).

          • Ronzonni

            It might have been easier to patent the basic low temperature ecat, don’t you think? It lends itself to easier, iron clad, calorimetry for example using a flow calorimeter.

      • Axil Axil

        As a community, we live and learn. As time goes on, the experiments and demos get better and more air tight. They may eventually become undeniable.

      • Omega Z

        Bob
        I think you know what would have been claimed had they used a different reactor as a dummy.

        I think you also know why they didn’t take it to the same high temps in the dummy run.

        It’s also My Opinion that these reactors are strictly 1 use disposable research reactors. I think the final product will be also, but of a highly different design.

        • Bob Greenyer

          As I said in my Moscow presentation, you can start them and regulate their output within bounds, but stop it and you can’t get it running again, well, I have not seen evidence for that in Ni+H systems claiming excess heat.

  • Heath

    One would think IH’s patent lawyers would have resolved any discrepancies and advocated this application through.

  • Felipe

    I totally agree with the patent office

  • Zack Iszard

    I like how the examiner’s theoretical objections center around the Coulomb barrier (which may well turn out to be the “flat earth” or “miasma theory” of nuclear science) predominantly, and then mentions that if such reactions are possible (the absorption of a proton by nickel-58 to become copper-59 and a gamma ray), then they would occur openly in nature and thus un-patentable, and more importantly would have been discovered already. Clearly, since the conditions inside the E-cat exist everywhere in nature – nano-textured metallic nickel with a 10% proportion of lithium aluminum hydride (a material which is not found in nature due to reactivity) in a sealed environment and heat applied of several hundred C, with magnetic stimulation by induction heating coils. That arrangement of materials and conditions is everywhere! Why have we not seen this before!?!?!

    Different conditions, different reactions. The nuclear rearrangements in LENR are specifically pathways that have relatively low activation energy, and exchange energy with the lattice (phonons, i.e. heat), not with space-time (EM radiation, like gammas). Net reaction products are the same, and the energy differences are the same (they must be to remain consistent with E=mc^2), but because helium could not have been measured effectively without a gas-capture system in place upon opening the reactor, the sum of reaction products cannot be known.

    The inference that the activity involves LENR is a fair assumption based on surface elemental analysis (EDS is good only for the top few dozen atoms or so, usually). Ultimately, though, I do not believe that the highly enriched nickel samples are fully representative of the bulk ash material, and comprise only the most LENR-active regions. Further experimentation with the proper setup to realistically quantify every component – including gas – in the reactor before and after operation is needed, such that through stoichiometry the measured energy release is confirmed by the difference between reactants and products. The only valid objection the patent officer makes, IMO, is that if 99% of the nickel was burned, and that nickel burning was a significant source of heat released, then net heat output should have shown a decrease near the end of the trial. Sampling of the ash material is a HUGE source of error here.

    Worst case, as AlainCo says, is to wait for utility data from the 1 MW plant and apply for a fresh patent. Barring industrial espionage, I think IH can keep their level of achievement a secret long enough for a patent to be accepted

  • mcloki

    Refine the patent to meet the criticisms. and resubmit. In the end it’s not the patent that’s important it’s the fact that LENR works the way it has been portrayed.

  • mcloki

    Refine the patent to meet the criticisms. and resubmit. In the end it’s not the patent that’s important it’s the fact that LENR works the way it has been portrayed.

  • Observer

    Rossi’s Lawyers have stated that Burke has to prove it does not work. Burke is using theoretical dogma to discount experimental evidence and thus is putting forward that no proof of operability will be accepted. This will have to be settled by the judicial system and the court’s “Finding of Fact” (what a concept). In the end “history” will make fools of us all.

    • Zack Iszard

      Absolutely. It would be very curious if an uninvolved mainstream plasma science team reported something that calls into question the assumed magnitude of the Coulomb barrier at low energies in the interim before the 1 MW plant data is compiled and released. As long as the complaints about the magnitude of the Coulomb barrier being vastly overestimated come from the LENR establishment, the group-think is easy to reinforce.

  • Observer

    Rossi’s Lawyers have stated that Burke has to prove it does not work. Burke is using theoretical dogma to discount experimental evidence and thus is putting forward that no proof of operability will be accepted. This will have to be settled by the judicial system and the court’s “Finding of Fact” (what a concept). In the end “history” will make fools of us all.

    • Zack Iszard

      Absolutely. It would be very curious if an uninvolved mainstream plasma science team reported something that calls into question the assumed magnitude of the Coulomb barrier at low energies in the interim before the 1 MW plant data is compiled and released. As long as the complaints about the magnitude of the Coulomb barrier being vastly overestimated come from the LENR establishment, the group-think is easy to reinforce.

    • Ronzonni

      Strange. I think it’s up to the applicant for the patent to prove it works, not for the patent office to prove it does not. If the examiner’s objections to the Levi et al tests are overcome, and the hot cat is shown to work as stated by Rossi, a continuing refusal to grant a patent will not stand up in court.

  • Agaricus

    If a US patent is necessary to IH’s strategy, then they may need to build one. Alternatively, there is a more convoluted path available, which is to obtain a patent in an EU country, make this Europe-wide by applying through the European Patent Convention (EPC), then go to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to obtain world-wide protection through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT.

    I’m not sure how much protection this would give in the ‘states vs. a US patent, but it is probably a whole lot better than nothing – assuming a suitably specific and well-written patent is obtained in the first place. However, in view of the degree of disclosure required, IMHO they would be better served going down the ‘trade secret’ path and simply holding onto the core IP for as long as possible.

    • GreenWin

      Rossi still holds an Italian patent which may be recognized by WIPO and or EPC. But I agree, Trade Secret is recognized and enforceable world wide more than certain patents. The Pharma industry has successfully used Trade Secret to protect “secret sauces” while patenting less proprietary elements of an invention.

      However, this application establishes an excellent paper trail of Rossi’s proprietary designs and materials. If the industrial prototype field test concludes successfully a new patent will be filed covering broader theory and proprietary components. Meanwhile, replications will continue with increasing success and dozens of new patent apps will pile up at the USPTO door – each further evidence something in the Standard Model is not quite right.

  • Matt Sevrens

    When it is unambiguously proved, Rossi should be able to sue the patent office for damages

    • bfast

      I believe that you are approximately correct. I believe that once it is proved, Rossi will be able to sue — not as a $ figure for damages, but sue to have the patent instated.

      • Steven Irizarry

        if its proved the lawsuit revenue could help build factories

  • Bob Greenyer

    In specification (rejection 18) the list that it needs to be an accelerated proton beam

    According to Piantellis empirically derived awarded patent claims, a proton is sometimes ejected from the near captured Protide (H- ion) at 6.7mEV – more than enough to perform said reaction.

  • Leonard Weinstein

    I have had several patents reach the state of final rejection, but with appeal and more back and forth, most were eventually issued. This is just a stage of the drawn out process. My most recent patent took 7 years from start to issue date, and was much less controversial than Rossi’s. However, I am not sure Rossi’s can issue without giving more detail in the chemicals used and any special electrical actions.

  • Freethinker

    The examiner is going a bit wild…

    The patent is for a machine. Right? His ranting that if it was a natural phenomenon then it could not be patented is strange to me. Most patents relating to machines build on basic natural phenomena in one or another way, even though they most often are such phenomena that science agree on actually exist.

    Also he is putting the weight on the Levi report to somehow explain things, whereas it is quite obvious that it is a black box test aiming at showing that it works as claimed by the inventor. If Levi et al. reaches that goal, we all know, is debatable. There is no lack of people claiming that it does not.

    As such as the rejection has a hard and final tone, I think IH and their suits in the IP department expected this outcome, on way or another. As Rossi writes, they will get back to USPTO.

    • Omega Z

      Have you read some of the patent requirements.
      If it’s a natural phenomenon you can’t patent it.
      If it doesn’t occur naturally in nature you can’t patent it as it can’t exist.

      Perhaps it’s time for a little International Politics.
      Maybe India & China would send representatives for a 30 day test & if they find it conclusive, they would approve a patent before the pilot plant test is even concluded. You would merely need to offer them a lucrative license to manufacture product for their own people.(Note, they will do this anyway.)

      I’m certain this would get the attention of U.S. Politicians who’ll be explaining to the USPTO how it’s being reorganized & will be needing major replenishing of ranks. Starting at the top.

  • Freethinker

    The examiner is going a bit wild…

    The patent is for a machine. Right? His ranting that if it was a natural phenomenon then it could not be patented is strange to me. Most patents relating to machines build on basic natural phenomena in one or another way, even though they most often are such phenomena that science agree on actually exist.

    Also he is putting the weight on the Levi report to somehow explain things, whereas it is quite obvious that it is a black box test aiming at showing that it works as claimed by the inventor. If Levi et al. reaches that goal, we all know, is debatable. There is no lack of people claiming that it does not.

    As such as the rejection has a hard and final tone, I think IH and their suits in the IP department expected this outcome, one way or another. As Rossi writes, they will get back to USPTO.

    • Omega Z

      Have you read some of the patent requirements.
      If it’s a natural phenomenon you can’t patent it.
      If it doesn’t occur naturally in nature you can’t patent it as it can’t exist.

      Perhaps it’s time for a little International Politics.
      Maybe India & China would send representatives for a 30 day test & if they find it conclusive, they would approve a patent before the pilot plant test is even concluded. You would merely need to offer them a lucrative license to manufacture product for their own people.(Note, they will do this anyway.)

      I’m certain this would get the attention of U.S. Politicians who’ll be explaining to the USPTO how it’s being reorganized & will be needing major replenishing of ranks. Starting at the top.

  • bfast

    Please note the line, “A shortened statutory reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS …”
    In USPTO speak, final doesn’t mean final.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      yup, final rejections are not really final with the USTPO

  • bfast

    Please note the line, “A shortened statutory reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS …”
    In USPTO speak, final doesn’t mean final.

    • yup, final rejections are not really final with the USTPO

  • georgehants

    I find it interesting that the majority on page are discussing the rejection alone, without making the point that just like the knowledge of the Genome that belongs to Humanity, Cold Fusion must also belong to Humanity and any attempt to create the same discrimination as has happened with life saving drugs etc. where only the rich can afford many of them and the poor are just left to die, must not be allowed to happen.
    Time I believe for the money Rich to be replaced with the True richness of knowing one is helping to save lives and suffering in this sad unequal World.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      I tire of your rants.

      • georgehants

        Would you like to give a reply to my fair comment or is that beyond your abilities?
        I am sorry that you find humane concerns alien in science.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Rossi already tried by treating waste, naively thinking that what is best for humanity would be embraced. Laws were changed overnight. He was torn apart legally and individually (like Fleishmann et al.), he is not going to make the same mistakes again.
      Ever heard the story about the pearls and the pigs? Errare humanum est; perseverare, diabolicum. Some ignorance is intentional.

      • georgehants

        Fredda, if at first you don’t succeed try try again.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Yes, but change the strategy.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        PS Meanwhile oil @ $44….

  • georgehants

    I find it interesting that the majority on page are discussing the rejection alone, without making the point that just like the knowledge of the Genome that belongs to Humanity, Cold Fusion must also belong to Humanity and any attempt to create the same discrimination as has happened with life saving drugs etc. where only the rich can afford many of them and the poor are just left to die, must not be allowed to happen.
    Time I believe for the money Rich to be replaced with the True richness of knowing one is helping to save lives and suffering in this sad unequal World.

    • Andrew Hurley

      Mr. Rossi should not be able to patent the Effect any more than one can patent fission. But one should certainly be allowed to patent a reactor design.

      • Dave Lawton

        This is what the late Harold Aspden did and obtained a full US patent on a cold fusion
        reactor design.

    • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

      Rossi already tried by treating waste, naively thinking that what is best for humanity would be embraced. Laws were changed overnight. He was torn apart legally and individually (like Fleishmann et al.), he is not going to make the same mistakes again.
      Ever heard the story about the pearls and the pigs? Errare humanum est; perseverare, diabolicum. Some ignorance is intentional.

      • georgehants

        Fredda, if at first you don’t succeed try try again.

        • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

          Yes, but change the strategy.

      • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

        PS Meanwhile oil @ $44….

  • Guest_1234

    This begs the most obvious question – why didn’t Rossi submit his own testing data, instead of that of a third party? If secrecy is a concern, there are procedures at the PTO for submitting confidential information under seal.

  • Robert Ellefson

    Poor, poor Rossi. What a bummer. Now he may be forced to make his $Billions by selling a competitive product on the open market, without benefit of a government-enforced monopoly. How is a guy supposed to get ahead without an unfair advantage? As everybody knows, _nobody_ will invest in a business that does not have a monopoly on the market they are entering. Just look at Tesla – would they have been insane enough to invest real money into a new automobile manufacturing venture without the benefit of a strong fundamental patent to protect them? Of course not! Elon Musk is no dummy, that’s for sure, and he certainly would not risk becoming another laughing-stock like Delorean. Without a monopoly, a company would have to market a product that customers actually prefer over other competitive products – As If !!!! What to do, what to do….

    • Obvious

      Delorean was the brilliant mind that said (when he worked for GM) that they could afford to give the cars away, as long as the customers did all their service work and bought their parts at their dealer.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    March 13th, 2015 at 9:10 AM
    To the Readers of the JoNP:
    We received the USPTO action against our patent application. The action
    is negative and we have 60 days to make our counter- considerations. Our
    patent attorney is working on it, because we think our application is
    worth a defense.
    Any consideration is premature, being on course our due action.
    Andrea Rossi

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi, unlike some on page is willing to put forth his argument for the hiding of Cold Fusion.
    That one must respect and only time will tell in years to come if it is highjacked by the rich for just themselves.
    ———–
    jackie
    March 13th, 2015 at 11:16 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    do you not believe that the benefits of your Wonderful work with Cold
    Fusion should belong freely to the World.
    ———-
    Andrea Rossi
    March 13th, 2015 at 11:24 AM
    Jackie:
    Of course I do ! And to make it real, and not just sitting room
    chattering, it is necessary defend the Intellectual Property, to allow
    the strong investments necessary to make my work properly distributed
    around the World.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • georgehants

    Mr. Rossi, unlike some on page is willing to put forth his argument for the hiding of Cold Fusion.
    That one must respect and only time will tell in years to come if it is highjacked by the rich for just themselves.
    ———–
    jackie
    March 13th, 2015 at 11:16 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi,
    do you not believe that the benefits of your Wonderful work with Cold
    Fusion should belong freely to the World.
    ———-
    Andrea Rossi
    March 13th, 2015 at 11:24 AM
    Jackie:
    Of course I do ! And to make it real, and not just sitting room
    chattering, it is necessary defend the Intellectual Property, to allow
    the strong investments necessary to make my work properly distributed
    around the World.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • bachcole

    I will lose exactly zero sleep about this tonight.

  • bachcole

    I will lose exactly zero sleep about this tonight.

  • It must be hard to patent something where essential parts of it can’t be revealed.

    • Nigel Appleton

      It’s (in theory, at least) not possible to patent something if essential parts of the invention are not revealed. The essence of a patent is that someone adequately skilled in the relevant art should be able to reproduce the invention from the information in the patent. One has a choice – either reveal all and get legal protection, or keep your secrets and hope that no-one discovers them independently. I’ve used both strategies successfully in my time.

    • Paul

      The other bad news for Rossi is that Rossi effect does not need the catalyst at high temperatures, so now anyone can apply for a patent… not only Parkhomov

  • It must be hard to patent something where essential parts of it can’t be revealed.

    • Nigel Appleton

      It’s (in theory, at least) not possible to patent something if essential parts of the invention are not revealed. The essence of a patent is that someone adequately skilled in the relevant art should be able to reproduce the invention from the information in the patent. One has a choice – either reveal all and get legal protection, or keep your secrets and hope that no-one discovers them independently. I’ve used both strategies successfully in my time.

    • Paul

      The other bad news for Rossi is that Rossi effect does not need the catalyst at high temperatures, so now anyone can apply for a patent… not only Parkhomov

    • Ronzonni

      Not hard. Impossible. To patent a device, you must reveal enough so that others, versed in the art, can duplicate it. The patent is what protects you against others then stealing it and selling it without your permission.

      Here is the actual wording: “Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement according to which a patent application must disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficiency_of_disclosure

      http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/index.html

      • Observer

        Parkhomov has demonstrated that there was sufficiency of disclosure for a person skilled in the art to carry out the claimed invention.

        By the way, if you haven’t figured it out by now, the catalyst in the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) is the Nickel. As for the need for a secret ingredient, it is the same secret ingredient used it the noodle soup in “Kung Fu Panda”.

        • Ronzonni

          You mean in the original ecat? The catalyst is nickel? How in the world do you know that?

  • Paul

    The criticisms by the USPTO appear totally correct, they have soon discovered the weakness of the report. Sadly to say, if Rossi and IH defend this application they simply lose their time. Better if they admit what is so clear and repeat a test with a serious calibration of the thermal imager, otherwise others will do it for them and bye bye patent…

    • Freethinker

      Some of the criticism, yes, albeit the tone is unwarranted. It expose too much of the predisposition with the examiner. In the end the rejection is because the invention is inoperable, but also obvious as there are prior art making it obvious.

      Go figure. The second rejection reason contradicts the first one. That is, in my mind, of course. If it is inoperable, then there is no reason to point to what would be related prior art making it obvious. What is obvious is that if it does not work it has nothing to do with previously granted patents as those always would be based on sound principles (cough) and be very much operable.

      I believe IH will be able to demonstrate both operability and utility soon enough, if they want, and the obviousness will likely be shown to be not so obvious.

      • Paul

        I think that the tone is due to the fact that the examiner see hundred of patent applications every year and I think it is rare for him to see so many trivial mistakes made in a document about a so important invention. The part of the Lugano report describing calibration is a disaster, if I make this kind of calibration at an examination of Laboratory of Physics I, I do not pass the exam, be sure…

        • Freethinker

          I think you are exaggerating the proficiency needed to pass that examination. I also think you exaggerate the work load for one examiner quite a bit. He can not be entangled in hundreds of patent applications on a daily basis if he is supposed to actually be able to do his job properly. There were a couple of major mistakes made in the work of Levi et al. But the examiner is still going out of his way to point at things not really relevant as they were *clearly* speculations in the conclusions of that report.

          • georgehants

            Maybe they should look out for another Mr. Einstein as a patent clerk, Ha.

          • Freethinker

            True. Maybe this examiner is the new Einstein…

          • GreenWin

            Recall the USPTO is still embroiled in the “Telework” scandal where dozens of Examiners have been caught fraudulently billing for hours at home playing video games or surfing the web. The agency shields corrupt employees. http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/11/uspto-telework-abuses.html

          • I agree with this position.
            some critics, like the calibration are founded.
            Anyway from it one could extract interesting evidence of LENR (even if emmissivity does not lower, there is COP), and more than that his speculation and innuendo on isotopic shift is a professional fault. If an examiner start to question scientsits about frauds, and about theory, whil clearly he have no idea of what is LENR liste of phenomenons.
            when he says that there is no NiH reviewed paper he is probably right, but there are know experiments, and mass of PdD LENr reviewed papers.

            this guys behave like a mindguard, defending a position, not like a shield for bad applications.

            he have clear evidence of nuclear reaction, inside a known scientific domain, and as USPTO he does not need to be 100% sure it works… that is the job of the client.
            he need to shield from abusive application.
            it is clearly not the case, except on one point that make me negative: difficulties to replicate.

  • Ronzonni

    This might be a good time for Rossi to reveal to MFPM enough so they can do an accurate replication. He can bind them under NDA’s and legal documents to any extent he wants. The risk to IP would be low because MFPM is honest. MFPM would know how to test in a way that overcomes the patent examiner’s objections.

    Anyway, what does Rossi expect to happen after he leaves his baby (the first megawatt plant) to the new owners? What stops them from taking it apart and reverse engineering it if they are determined to do so? If he sells the plant, Rossi can’t insist on having his representatives watch it 24/7. What stops the owners from sending it on a secret shipment to China or Korea or wherever they want?

    Rossi really needs that patent and should overcome the examiner’s objections with the best disclosures, tests and data he can get. MFPM would seem to be be the perfect partner.

    • hempenearth

      Maybe he just leases it to them?

      • Ronzonni

        Even so. It isn’t economically feasible to have an IH guard 24/7 and according to Rossi, the plant has to make a profit. So what’s to stop someone from taking apart an ecat in the middle of the night, running the analyses, taking samples, and by morning, it could all be put back together. Or how about an armed robbery? There are so many ways to purloin an ecat, it’s going to happen as soon as it’s sold. And BTW, Rossi said sold, not leased. And then what happened when IH makes dozens, hundreds or thousands? Can’t guard them all!

        Patents with full disclosure– the only way to go. It works for millions of products, why not for the ecat?

        • Frank Acland

          Rossi says they do have 24/7 security on this plant, along with multiple cameras.

          • Ronzonni

            Maybe I’ve seen too many movies. But it seems to me if China or Russia or any very wealthy individual wanted an ecat, they could steal one from IH’s customer by force. I doubt that a few rent-a-cops could stop a determined effort with armed commandos. People would do that for something worth billions! And when these plants are sold in any quantity, what then? Can stealth or security be considered adequate for protection when compared to a patent?

  • Obvious

    More time for us to build, find new variations, new uses, and make something that won’t infringe on the direction the existing patent applications are headed. Best of luck to Rossi and IH, but there is more than one way to use a law of nature. For that reason, I will no longer comment on possible uses for the reaction, or methods of obtaining it. This public disclosure nonsense has forced my studies into secrecy. I might not need a trillion dollars, but I could handle independently wealthy with grace (I hope).

    • Nigel Appleton

      Never mind that – flaunt it!
      And hurry – for all we know someone less high-minded than ourselves has already cracked the problems and is even now negotiating with Big OIl and Big Gas and Big Coal to be paid off to burn his experimental records.

      As georgehants will tell you – it’s a wicked, wicked world

      • Obvious

        Prediction: class action suit to be filed, to be colloquially known as ” infinite typing monkeys Vs. USPTO and WIPO”

        • Omega Z

          There is a method to his madness.
          Read the fine print. It is not free.
          It will actually benefit his business by making everything compatible with his. Increasing the number of re-charge stations for Tesla’s.
          Basically, He wants to be the VHS, Not Beta-max.

          But I would agree the patent system has been corrupted & the changes & proposed changes will make it even worse..

    • Robert Ellefson

      Does this mean that you are no longer going to pay any attention to the progress of others in this field, even if they openly share details of their work for the benefit of others to build on? Or are you going to become yet another Taker who doesn’t reciprocate?

      With courage and confidence in your product design abilities, I don’t see why you would need to have a monopoly in order to succeed. Low-cost labor markets will not provide a significant advantage in this space, for example, particularly with the rise of inexpensive and efficient automation in production these days.

      You are likely correct that patent lawsuits will be flying in all directions for years to come, but acquiring a patent is only purchasing a right to sue other people for infringement, so you are *guaranteed* to become embroiled in these lawsuits if you want to seek patent protection. On the other hand, using openly-available information to design your products means that they are protected by prior-art. If a patent-holder later sues you for infringement, it is unlikely that they would be able to acquire an injunction against your sales during the course of any proceedings, and even more unlikely that they would eventually prevail, unless their IP really is covered by strong and broad patent protection, which I have not seen to date in any LENR patent applications. In the meantime, the whole industry of new companies making similar use of that public-domain prior-art would be able to join forces to battle invalid claims as a class. Honestly, I am confident that pursuing fundamental patents in this field is a fool’s errand.

      • Obvious

        I will build something that works, first. Then I will reconsider my position. If I invent a pots and pans that need 1/10th of the normal energy to heat, I will give the idea away, if it can be widely distributed no nearly no cost. That should help prevent deforestation in poor countries, etc. But automobile power supplies, flying skateboards, ect., are not needs for the world, and charging for these I would have no problem with.

        • Robert Ellefson

          I agree – novel and innovative end-use applications like flying skateboards are the right kind of product spaces to pursue with valid IP protection. The fundamental reaction science and basic related technology needs to stay in the public domain, and I’m reasonably confident that it will, one way or the other.

          • Obvious

            What worries me more is that that the disclosure rules these days can suck the life out of investments in developing truly spectacular technology ideas because some random person on a blog can have a brief moment of lucidity or slip of the tongue. Patent trolls and random brilliant ideas are hard to tell apart, which is another problem, especially when the originators never actually intend to make any physical embodiment.

            I don’t know how many have gone through the patent info supplied in the link below. They would have a better idea of what Rossi and others are up against.

            http://www.epo.org/learning-events/materials/inventors-handbook/disclosure.html

  • Obvious

    More time for us to build, find new variations, new uses, and make something that won’t infringe on the direction the existing patent applications are headed. Best of luck to Rossi and IH, but there is more than one way to use a law of nature. For that reason, I will no longer comment on possible uses for the reaction, or methods of obtaining it. This public disclosure nonsense has forced my studies into secrecy. I might not need a trillion dollars, but I could handle independently wealthy with grace (I hope).

    • Nigel Appleton

      Never mind that – flaunt it!
      And hurry – for all we know someone less high-minded than ourselves has already cracked the problems and is even now negotiating with Big OIl and Big Gas and Big Coal to be paid off to burn his experimental records.

      As georgehants will tell you – it’s a wicked, wicked world

      • Obvious

        Prediction: class action suit to be filed, to be colloquially known as ” infinite typing monkeys Vs. USPTO and WIPO”

    • Robert Ellefson

      Does this mean that you are no longer going to pay any attention to the progress of others in this field, even if they openly share details of their work for the benefit of others to build on? Or are you going to become yet another Taker who doesn’t reciprocate?

      With courage and confidence in your product design abilities, I don’t see why you would need to have a monopoly in order to succeed. Low-cost labor markets will not provide a significant advantage in this space, for example, particularly with the rise of inexpensive and efficient automation in production these days.

      You are likely correct that patent lawsuits will be flying in all directions for years to come, but acquiring a patent is only purchasing a right to sue other people for infringement, so you are *guaranteed* to become embroiled in these lawsuits if you want to seek patent protection. On the other hand, using openly-available information to design your products means that they are protected by prior-art. If a patent-holder later sues you for infringement, it is unlikely that they would be able to acquire an injunction against your sales during the course of any proceedings, and even more unlikely that they would eventually prevail, unless their IP really is covered by strong and broad patent protection, which I have not seen to date in any LENR patent applications. In the meantime, the whole industry of new companies making similar use of that public-domain prior-art would be able to join forces to battle invalid claims as a class. Honestly, I am confident that pursuing fundamental patents in this field is a fool’s errand.

      • Obvious

        I will build something that works, first. Then I will reconsider my position. If I invent pots and pans that need 1/10th of the normal energy to heat, I will give the idea away, if it can be widely distributed no nearly no cost. That should help prevent deforestation in poor countries, etc. But automobile power supplies, flying skateboards, ect., are not needs for the world, and charging for these I would have no problem with.

        • Robert Ellefson

          I agree – novel and innovative end-use applications like flying skateboards are the right kind of product spaces to pursue with valid IP protection. The fundamental reaction science and basic related technology needs to stay in the public domain, and I’m reasonably confident that it will, one way or the other.

          • Obvious

            What worries me more is that that the disclosure rules these days can suck the life out of investments in developing truly spectacular technology ideas because some random person on a blog can have a brief moment of lucidity or slip of the tongue. Patent trolls and random brilliant ideas are hard to tell apart, which is another problem, especially when the originators never actually intend to make any physical embodiment.

            I don’t know how many have gone through the patent info supplied in the link below. They would have a better idea of what Rossi and others are up against.

            http://www.epo.org/learning-events/materials/inventors-handbook/disclosure.html

  • MWerner

    In the long run it doesn’t make much difference if this particular patent is issued. This places a stake in the ground that Rossi was here first. All the information in this patent, which isn’t enough, becomes prior art in the battles that lie ahead.
    I am sure that IH patent attorneys are crafting a new patent application that provides coverage for the method of causing and harnessing the “Rossi Effect” and does not try to patent the motions of atomic particles, which would be (should be) un-patent-able, even when it is shown to be a valid phenomena.

  • Dave Lawton

    The struggle to obtain a Cold fusion US patent.which in the end was granted.http://www.aetherscience.org/www-energyscience-org-uk/essays/ese08.htm

  • MarcIrvin

    Maybe the time for patents is waning… For example, Elon Musk open sourced his Tesla patents. See…

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2014/06/12/tesla-goes-open-source-elon-musk-releases-patents-to-good-faith-use/

    Unlike ages past the chatter littered internet can probably do more to garner true ownership than any piece of paper. The electronic trail, like a triple witnessed handshake, will for all time testify to Rossi’s primacy regarding LENR if his IH venture is successful. If not successful, oh well, the prize will clearly be up for grabs by anyone who ties down the first patent.

    • Omega Z

      There is a method to his madness.
      Read the fine print. It is not free.
      It will actually benefit his business by making everything compatible with his. Increasing the number of re-charge stations for Tesla’s.
      Basically, He wants to be the VHS, Not Beta-max.

      But I would agree the patent system has been corrupted & the changes & proposed changes will make it even worse..

  • GreenWin

    I would suggest this outcome has been anticipated for a number of years. Which is why Industrial Heat and Rossi are protecting their IP via Trade Secret law while establishing a paper trail via patent applications. An excellent example is the pharma company Wyeth’s successful defense of one of the most successful drugs in the world – Premarin. https://hbr.org/2013/11/filing-for-a-patent-versus-keeping-your-invention-a-trade-secret

    Twenty years after Wyeth’s patents expired there was still no generic version of the drug because Wyeth kept their extraction process a Trade Secret. It was their secret sauce. The Harvard Business Review explains how Trade Secret and patent applications can protect IP better than patent alone. This is what IH/Rossi appear to be doing successfully. And will continue to do until USPTO openly accepts LENR – e.g. U.S. Navy/JWK (SPAWAR) patent for “generating energetic particles.”

    BTW, how are taxpayers benefiting from the Navy/JWK patent? Or “NASA’s method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate
    And Sustain LENR in Metal Hydride Systems; a clean nuclear energy for
    your power- operated technology.”
    ? Which is available for licensing according to NASA’s web site.
    http://bit.ly/1MyqwWB

    • georgehants

      Harvard study reveals Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and
      how FDA cannot be trusted with public safety – See more at:
      http://seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/institutional-corruption-of-pharmaceuticals-how-FDA-cannot-be-trusted-with-public-safety.php#sthash
      http://seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/institutional-corruption-of-pharmaceuticals-how-FDA-cannot-be-trusted-with-public-safety.php
      ——-
      “There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad.”
      ~Salvador Dalí

      • GreenWin

        Yes George. The FDA is high on the list of ineffectual pork-fed agencies including CDC, USPTO, DOE, and NASA. Let’s not mention the 16 or so intelligence agencies policing the world. Modern medicine is killing people?? And has yet to cure the common rhino-virus? Arghhh.

        • georgehants

          GreenWin have you Researched the Placebo Effect in depth?

          • GreenWin

            Enough to know most every clinical study attributes 30% of beneficial reactions to Placebo. i.e., people “heal” themselves. Wonderful!

          • georgehants

            GreenWin, but no “cash” in the Placebo so lets forget, hide and debunk it.
            http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150306-the-mystery-of-vanishing-cancer?ocid=global_future_rss

          • GreenWin
          • georgehants

            Wonderful link, you will eventually come to believe that the only way to improve these things is to remove capitalism, I insist, Ha.

          • GreenWin

            I am planning on doing just that thing George. Perhaps Fall or next Spring. I would also like to return to the Lake District where Spring is a floral wonder and the red flows freely. Wonderful evening to you George!

          • georgehants

            That would be Wonderful, you must understand that long hair, beards and a supply of diazepam is mandatory to visit me.
            We must try and lasso Peter as well.
            Best wishes
            George

          • EEStorFanFibb

            This guy is much better than Mercola imo. Mercola is dead wrong on some topics.

            http://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-antidepressant-drugs-really-work

          • Obvious

            Ahhhh, yes, nothing works like good old Obecalp….

          • georgehants

            Obvious, thank you have you Researched the Placebo Effect in Depth?
            http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/treatmenttypes/placebo-effect

          • Obvious

            Nope. That was just one of my three miracles jokes for the day. The second one, actually. One more and the shepherd’s hook comes out and drags me offstage for the weekend…

          • georgehants

            Obvious No point in discussing serious science that effects millions with you today then.
            Best

          • Obvious

            Correct.
            Cheers.

          • Omega Z

            The purpose of patents were of honorable intent.
            Imagine you developed something of great benefit to society. Say an E-cat.
            Imagine GE or Exxon takes your idea, manufacture it & make Billion$.
            Imagine you find yourself living in a cardboard box in an alley.

            It was intended to let anyone benefit from their ideas even if they didn’t have the means financially or otherwise to manufacture it themselves. You could license it. The majority of ideas come from the commons. Which is logical as most Ideas come from a need for something to make things easier or just for convenience. The wealthy can afford for to pay for convenience or someone to do the dirty work.

            Even if you have the means to manufacture a product, The Big Corporations can easily squash you. They can buy in bulk & sell product for less then you would pay for the materials. A patent affords you some protection. At the very least it gives you a window of opportunity.

            And if your altruistic, you can even patent it & make it open source. Thus keeping anyone from monopolizing it. The problem is that special interests have gamed the system & the patent system is broken. It needs to be fixed.

          • it worked well at the time of Wright brothers, when innovation was taking decades to be sold.

            new articles explains that patent today are too slow to be useful.
            in fact some say that publishing weak patents, patents in weakly protected zone, in fact slow the competitors, because they don’t innovate.
            Most license paid for a patent are not helping people to innovate, but just allowing them to do what they wanted to do without any help of the patent. patent slow down innovation.

            in fact today there is a too big advantage for the one who innovate himself, or get help of the one who innovate, or to innovate by exploiting others work without much attention nor fear (by paying a “eat all you can”). this is the idea of OpenIP…

            you enter a club, you share your IP for a nice price, you pay a fixed cost to get all the IP as information, and you pay a license at nice cost for the sold product…

          • Omega Z

            Without IP protection, Most innovation will grind to a stop.
            I doubt Rossi would work 12/16 hour days & sell off his assets to develop the E-cat without the possibility of payback. Without IP protection, Most wont invest in the product. If they do, it will be at low levels & greatly delays the spread of the product.

            IP actually spurs Innovation. Samsung can’t copy I-phone so they must find new ways to build their own phone. In order to gain market share, they need something a little better. This leads to faster technological advances. If not for this competitively forced innovation, Apple could sell the same phone for 10/20 years without any improvements. Of course, without IP, there wouldn’t be an I-phone to begin with.

            Elon Musk open sourced some of his battery charging tech, but it was actually a shrewd business tactic with a good sales twist(It wasn’t for free). In lieu of a license fee, it requires everyone to use his standards. I’m sure this has much to do with the Mega-battery plant. Even tho this benefits the consumer in the short term, It may not in the future. And in this situation, Musk’s open sourcing actually interferes with innovation.

            We merely need to find a way for IP patents to work as they should. How to accomplish that without special interests messing it up is the issue. Without it, few people will invest.

          • I agree with that position, but it seems things have changed because it goes faster.

            first of all, people don’t innovate if they are sure they will not benefit from it.
            that is the goal of patent and it worked very well in the 60s.

            now things are different.
            it is impossible to really copy the innovation of someone else without innovating yourself, because otherwise you are late.

            what happen today , and which is describe by some, is that various people innovate in parallel with different approach, with much work, and same merit.

            then someone who did nothing, who provided no hint to any player, came and say, you are infringing my patent. it is true, and they pay.
            when people learn that a patent exist on something, they simply abandon that approach if they can, or pay if they have no choice, and the patent improved nothing.

            people having IP can get money but most of the time it is much less than what they would expect from simply making business and selling product as quickly as possible.

            in fact today patents is mostly a way to slow innovations.

            on the opposite trade secrets, know how, science, experience, human resources, are the real IP capital. It gives advantage for few month or years,an allow only to go on innovating like a permanent race against copy…

            I’ve discussed with the author of two very good patents.
            their patents have been copied (patented differently, with a minor difference ).
            one stated me that he could patent something else from what he worked on…
            the other said me that he did not care, that patent were worthless because what was making his business work was his ability to make custom solution for clients…
            in a way a patent is useful, just to resist patent troll, and focus on your real business, innovate faster than competitors.

            for Rossi he have a great know how and credibility.
            as long as he does not sell at crazy price and propose the best product (he can because he have experience), people will buy as much as he can produce…

            only if he is too slow to go industrial will competitors catch consumers.

            so hist first goal is to be the best, go fast, and staisfy clients.

            if chinese copy him, he still will have too many clients to satisfy himself.

            Chinese may even make the market grow with applications.

  • GreenWin

    I would suggest this outcome has been anticipated for a number of years. Which is why Industrial Heat and Rossi are protecting their IP via Trade Secret law while establishing a paper trail via patent applications. An excellent example is the pharma company Wyeth’s successful defense of one of the most successful drugs in the world – Premarin. https://hbr.org/2013/11/filing-for-a-patent-versus-keeping-your-invention-a-trade-secret

    Twenty years after Wyeth’s patents expired there was still no generic version of the drug because Wyeth kept their extraction process a Trade Secret. It was their secret sauce. The Harvard Business Review explains how Trade Secret and patent applications can protect IP better than patent alone. This is what IH/Rossi appear to be doing successfully. And will continue to do until USPTO openly accepts LENR – e.g. U.S. Navy/JWK (SPAWAR) patent for “generating energetic particles.”

    BTW, how are taxpayers benefiting from the Navy/JWK patent? Or “NASA’s method for Enhancement of Surface Plasmon Polaritons to Initiate
    And Sustain LENR in Metal Hydride Systems; a clean nuclear energy for
    your power- operated technology.”
    ? Which is available for licensing according to NASA’s web site.
    http://bit.ly/1MyqwWB

  • Rossi’s patents are rejected because they do not fully teach. If one withholds what appears to be vital information from a patent application then the “teaching” is viewed as being intentionally flawed. Here’s a link for more http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/11/30/patents-must-teach/

    • I agree with that problems.

      I am more shocked by the conspiracy theories not even admitted on the isotopic shift, and the unfounded theory hypothesis.

      There is clear desire to reject that application whatever it takes, real or not. It looks a desperate crusade.

      • Curbina

        I’d say that the idea that LENR is pseudoscience is deeply ingrained in the “expert examinators”.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      except thats not why it was rejected… it was rejected because it was ‘inoperable’ therefore when the device can be proved to be operable (end of industrial testing) then the patent should be granted.

  • Rossi’s patents are rejected because they do not fully teach. If one withholds what appears to be vital information from a patent application then the “teaching” is viewed as being intentionally flawed. Here’s a link for more http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2014/11/30/patents-must-teach/

    • I agree with that problems.

      I am more shocked by the conspiracy theories not even admitted on the isotopic shift, and the unfounded theory hypothesis.

      There is clear desire to reject that application whatever it takes, real or not. It looks a desperate crusade.

      • Curbina

        I’d say that the idea that LENR is pseudoscience is deeply ingrained in the “expert examinators”.

        • bachcole

          Yes. And that doesn’t bother me in the least. The longer they hold out, the more embarrassing it will be for them.

    • NCY

      except thats not why it was rejected… it was rejected because it was ‘inoperable’ therefore when the device can be proved to be operable (end of industrial testing) then the patent should be granted.

  • builditnow

    It could work in Rossi’s favor. A prior patent, even if rejected, would be prior art when finally the USPTO issues LENR / Cold Fusion patents. The advantage to Rossi is that when the patents are finally issued, they are good for about 20 years from the date of issue. This means that Rossi will have patents that are good just as he and industrial heat are swinging into full production. Of course, Rossi has to make every effort to gain the patent as this establishes it’s future validity.

    Thanks to the USPTO, the pathoskeptis and Rossi’s persistence,
    you are all contributing to the likelihood that Rossi will be the first trillionaire.
    Well done Sean Burke and the USPTO.

    • SG

      The term of a utility patent (the kind Rossi filed) is measured from the filing date not the issue date.

      • Omega Z

        This is all Greek to me.

  • builditnow

    It could work in Rossi’s favor. A prior patent, even if rejected, would be prior art when finally the USPTO issues LENR / Cold Fusion patents. The advantage to Rossi is that when the patents are finally issued, they are good for about 20 years from the date of issue. This means that Rossi will have patents that are good just as he and industrial heat are swinging into full production. Of course, Rossi has to make every effort to gain the patent as this establishes it’s future validity.

    Thanks to the USPTO, the pathoskeptis and Rossi’s persistence,
    you are all contributing to the likelihood that Rossi will be the first trillionaire.
    Well done Sean Burke and the USPTO.

    • SG

      The term of a utility patent (the kind Rossi filed) is measured from the filing date not the issue date.

  • bachcole

    I am really unclear why I am getting so many emails about this article. I see it basically as a case of “lead, follow, or get the [deleted expletive] out of the way.” Obviously the patent office is not leading. So they only have two choices left. Why would this generate so much discussion?

    • Obvious

      This is classic stuff. Re-imagine the details of the story with the Rossi reactor as the Gorgon’s head, the True Laws of Nature will be Zeus to keep the story sort of organized, and you can fill in the other characters from there. Gripping indeed.

      • bachcole

        Wasn’t it Theseus who fought the Gorgon’s head?

        • Obvious

          Perseus. It is a complicated story.
          (Theseus is from the Minotaur story)

          • bachcole

            Perseus, Theseus, I always get those “eseus” mixed up. What’s the difference between a ‘P’ sound and a ‘Th’ sound. Just a little tongue and lip action.

          • Obvious

            Πολλά πράγματα πέφτουν μεταξύ του κυπέλλου και του χείλους

          • bachcole

            Σωκράτης ήταν ένας πνευματικά προηγμένο ψυχή. Αλλά μόνο πηγή μας είναι ο Πλάτων, και ο ίδιος δεν είχε προχωρήσει πνευματικά. Έτσι, ο Σωκράτης, επειδή ήταν «διοχετεύονται» μέσω του Πλάτωνα, έρχεται μακριά σαν μια μεγάλη ιατροφιλόσοφος.

          • Omega Z

            This is all Greek to me.

  • Observer

    Parkhomov has demonstrated that there was sufficiency of disclosure for a person skilled in the art to carry out the claimed invention.

    By the way, if you haven’t figured it out by now, the catalyst in the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) is the Nickel. As for the need for a secret ingredient, it is the same secret ingredient used it the noodle soup in “Kung Fu Panda”.

    • Ronzonni

      You mean in the original ecat? The catalyst is nickel? How in the world do you know that?

  • hempenearth

    Maybe he just leases it to them?

    • Ronzonni

      Even so. It isn’t economically feasible to have an IH guard 24/7 and according to Rossi, the plant has to make a profit. So what’s to stop someone from taking apart an ecat in the middle of the night, running the analyses, taking samples, and by morning, it could all be put back together. Or how about an armed robbery? There are so many ways to purloin an ecat, it’s going to happen as soon as it’s sold. And BTW, Rossi said sold, not leased. And then what happened when IH makes dozens, hundreds or thousands? Can’t guard them all!

      Patents with full disclosure– the only way to go. It works for millions of products, why not for the ecat?

      • ecatworld

        Rossi says they do have 24/7 security on this plant, along with multiple cameras.

  • Obvious

    This is classic stuff. Re-imagine the details of the story with the Rossi reactor as the Gorgon’s head, the True Laws of Nature will be Zeus to keep the story sort of organized, and you can fill in the other characters from there. Gripping indeed.

    • bachcole

      Wasn’t it Theseus who fought the Gorgon’s head?

      • Obvious

        Perseus. It is a complicated story.
        (Theseus is from the Minotaur story)

  • Obvious

    Πολλά πράγματα πέφτουν μεταξύ του κυπέλλου και του χείλους

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In order to be patentable it has to be non-obvious but it can not be patentable because it is non-obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msPO_vXaCTw

    • Omega Z

      Alan

      I have read some of what is required for a patent.
      I realized very quickly that you HAVE to HAVE a Patent Lawyer.

      I then wondered & Sure enough, Patent Lawyers were involved in writing the rules. Imagine that…
      And Rule Number 1 is apparently Job Security.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        That’s the beauty of the system.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Nice shot of the B-25 in the background.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    In order to be patentable it has to be non-obvious but it can not be patentable because it is non-obvious. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msPO_vXaCTw

    • Omega Z

      Alan

      I have read some of what is required for a patent.
      I realized very quickly that you HAVE to HAVE a Patent Lawyer.

      I then wondered & Sure enough, Patent Lawyers were involved in writing the rules. Imagine that…
      And Rule Number 1 is apparently Job Security.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        That’s the beauty of the system.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Nice shot of the B-25 in the background.

  • Obvious

    Delorean was the brilliant mind that said (when he worked for GM) that they could afford to give the cars away, as long as the customers did all their service work and bought their parts at their dealer.

  • Dr. Mike

    I never understood why Rossi had filed a patent application that blatantly failed to disclose the E-cat invention, but now it makes sense. Obviously, the patent would have been rejected this go round for failure to disclose the invention. However, if “failure to disclose” had been the only reason the patent was rejected, the next 60 days could have been used to fully disclose the invention (including a proposed theory of operation), resulting in Rossi finally having his US patent. With the patent now having also been rejected for “inoperability”, Rossi at least still has all of his intellectual property protected as a trade secret.

    It is interesting that the patent examiner was quite critical of the scientific methods and the speculative nature of the theory put forth in the Lugano report. As much as I respect the effort made by the Lugano team, I have to agree with the examiner on the scientific quality of the Lugano report, especially that the “low temperature control run” did not constitute an adequate control for the experiment. A vented reactor ran at the end of the active runs up to the active power level would have clearly shown that much higher temperatures were achieved with hydrogen present in the reactor. Also, the examiner was looking for extraordinary results to back up the “operability” of the invention. One way to achieve this kind of result would have been to run a reactor in the self-sustained mode (SSM), hopefully demonstrating a COP much greater than 10.

    I don’t see how Rossi will be able to come up with the data necessary to convince the examiner that the E-cat really works in the next 60 days unless the data from the 1MW plant is so good that the unit can be used as proof of a working device. Also, within the next 60 days Rossi needs some experimental results to prove a mechanism for a nuclear reaction(s) in the Ni-H system that is consistent with existing physics, but explains the excess heat generated.

  • Dr. Mike

    I never understood why Rossi had filed a patent application that blatantly failed to disclose the E-cat invention, but now it makes sense. Obviously, the patent would have been rejected this go round for failure to disclose the invention. However, if “failure to disclose” had been the only reason the patent was rejected, the next 60 days could have been used to fully disclose the invention (including a proposed theory of operation), resulting in Rossi finally having his US patent. With the patent now having also been rejected for “inoperability”, Rossi at least still has all of his intellectual property protected as a trade secret.

    It is interesting that the patent examiner was quite critical of the scientific methods and the speculative nature of the theory put forth in the Lugano report. As much as I respect the effort made by the Lugano team, I have to agree with the examiner on the scientific quality of the Lugano report, especially that the “low temperature control run” did not constitute an adequate control for the experiment. A vented reactor ran at the end of the active runs up to the active power level would have clearly shown that much higher temperatures were achieved with hydrogen present in the reactor. Also, the examiner was looking for extraordinary results to back up the “operability” of the invention. One way to achieve this kind of result would have been to run a reactor in the self-sustained mode (SSM), hopefully demonstrating a COP much greater than 10.

    I don’t see how Rossi will be able to come up with the data necessary to convince the examiner that the E-cat really works in the next 60 days unless the data from the 1MW plant is so good that the unit can be used as proof of a working device. Also, within the next 60 days Rossi needs some experimental results to prove a mechanism for a nuclear reaction(s) in the Ni-H system that is consistent with existing physics, but explains the excess heat generated.

    • guest2

      Perhaps a successful replication by the Lugano test team is imminent

  • Uncle Bob

    As many have said all along, a simple flow calorimetry test should have been done instead of the overly complex thermal radiation tests which then required complex conversion to an output power rating and thus a COP specification. The whole setup and procedure was unnecessarily complicated and subject to the possibility of error in many places. Consequently, the USPTO started from the position of not believing the device had been proven to work. That’s a very shaky foundation to then go on and accept any further claims regarding on what principle the invention works.
    It’s hard to accept there are any valid reasons why the reactor was not surrounded by a simple thermally insulated metal jacket which could have then been cooled by a regulated water flow, accurately measured for flow rate and temperature difference, input to output.
    A test of such nature conducted with all measurements taken at appropriate and verified positions in the system would have sufficed to prove to the USPTO that the device works.
    In the absence of any such simple proof, and no logical reason given for the absence of it, they made the only decision open to them. The device does not work as claimed.

    • Omega Z

      It should be noted that Jet engine manufacturers, The Military & NASA use this heat measuring technique all the time. In many situations in their line of work, it is the only way to get accurate readings that have to be within a few degrees. This is not a novel technique.

  • Omega Z

    It should be noted that Jet engine manufacturers, The Military & NASA use this heat measuring technique all the time. In many situations in their line of work, it is the only way to get accurate readings that have to be within a few degrees. This is not a novel technique.

  • Omega Z

    The purpose of patents were of honorable intent.
    Imagine you developed something of great benefit to society. Say an E-cat.
    Imagine GE or Exxon takes your idea, manufacture it & make Billion$.
    Imagine you find yourself living in a cardboard box in an alley.

    It was intended to let anyone benefit from their ideas even if they didn’t have the means financially or otherwise to manufacture it themselves. You could license it. The majority of ideas come from the commons. Which is logical as most Ideas come from a need for something to make things easier or just for convenience. The wealthy can afford for to pay for convenience or someone to do the dirty work.

    Even if you have the means to manufacture a product, The Big Corporations can easily squash you. They can buy in bulk & sell product for less then you would pay for the materials. A patent affords you some protection. At the very least it gives you a window of opportunity.

    And if your altruistic, you can even patent it & make it open source. Thus keeping anyone from monopolizing it. The problem is that special interests have gamed the system & the patent system is broken. It needs to be fixed.

    • it worked well at the time of Wright brothers, when innovation was taking decades to be sold.

      new articles explains that patent today are too slow to be useful.
      in fact some say that publishing weak patents, patents in weakly protected zone, in fact slow the competitors, because they don’t innovate.
      Most license paid for a patent are not helping people to innovate, but just allowing them to do what they wanted to do without any help of the patent. patent slow down innovation.

      in fact today there is a too big advantage for the one who innovate himself, or get help of the one who innovate, or to innovate by exploiting others work without much attention nor fear (by paying a “eat all you can”). this is the idea of OpenIP…

      you enter a club, you share your IP for a nice price, you pay a fixed cost to get all the IP as information, and you pay a license at nice cost for the sold product…

      • Omega Z

        Without IP protection, Most innovation will grind to a stop.
        I doubt Rossi would work 12/16 hour days & sell off his assets to develop the E-cat without the possibility of payback. Without IP protection, Most wont invest in the product. If they do, it will be at low levels & greatly delays the spread of the product.

        IP actually spurs Innovation. Samsung can’t copy I-phone so they must find new ways to build their own phone. In order to gain market share, they need something a little better. This leads to faster technological advances. If not for this competitively forced innovation, Apple could sell the same phone for 10/20 years without any improvements. Of course, without IP, there wouldn’t be an I-phone to begin with.

        Elon Musk open sourced some of his battery charging tech, but it was actually a shrewd business tactic with a good sales twist(It wasn’t for free). In lieu of a license fee, it requires everyone to use his standards. I’m sure this has much to do with the Mega-battery plant. Even tho this benefits the consumer in the short term, It may not in the future. And in this situation, Musk’s open sourcing actually interferes with innovation.

        We merely need to find a way for IP patents to work as they should. How to accomplish that without special interests messing it up is the issue. Without it, few people will invest.

        • I agree with that position, but it seems things have changed because it goes faster.

          first of all, people don’t innovate if they are sure they will not benefit from it.
          that is the goal of patent and it worked very well in the 60s.

          now things are different.
          it is impossible to really copy the innovation of someone else without innovating yourself, because otherwise you are late.

          what happen today , and which is describe by some, is that various people innovate in parallel with different approach, with much work, and same merit.

          then someone who did nothing, who provided no hint to any player, came and say, you are infringing my patent. it is true, and they pay.
          when people learn that a patent exist on something, they simply abandon that approach if they can, or pay if they have no choice, and the patent improved nothing.

          people having IP can get money but most of the time it is much less than what they would expect from simply making business and selling product as quickly as possible.

          in fact today patents is mostly a way to slow innovations.

          on the opposite trade secrets, know how, science, experience, human resources, are the real IP capital. It gives advantage for few month or years,an allow only to go on innovating like a permanent race against copy…

          I’ve discussed with the author of two very good patents.
          their patents have been copied (patented differently, with a minor difference ).
          one stated me that he could patent something else from what he worked on…
          the other said me that he did not care, that patent were worthless because what was making his business work was his ability to make custom solution for clients…
          in a way a patent is useful, just to resist patent troll, and focus on your real business, innovate faster than competitors.

          for Rossi he have a great know how and credibility.
          as long as he does not sell at crazy price and propose the best product (he can because he have experience), people will buy as much as he can produce…

          only if he is too slow to go industrial will competitors catch consumers.

          so hist first goal is to be the best, go fast, and staisfy clients.

          if chinese copy him, he still will have too many clients to satisfy himself.

          Chinese may even make the market grow with applications.

  • Omega Z

    I just had this thought.
    From a couple sources, rumor has it that the Lugano team is still doing Hot cat reactor work.
    Is it possible they may be doing an independent replication that would supply arguments to IH/Rossi Lawyers for the appeal????

    Just A thought!

  • Omega Z

    I just had this thought.
    From a couple sources, rumor has it that the Lugano team is still doing Hot cat reactor work.
    Is it possible they may be doing an independent replication that would supply arguments to IH/Rossi Lawyers for the appeal????

    Just A thought!

  • Andy Kumar

    Patent examiner says, “One of ORDINARY SKILL in the art would have cause to doubt Levi report (and methodology)….” That says it all. No need to look for LENR suppression conspiracies.
    As they say in Missouri,

    “I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You HAVE GOT TO SHOW me.” Good common sense attitude for those NOT skilled in the art or science of it.

    http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp

    • GreenWin

      Andy, this must be the very statement issued by the Indian Academies of Science. Apparently they like what they’ve been shown since they just published a Special Section on LENR in their peer-reviewed Current Science journal. There are some 30+ papers in this special section. Maybe Robert Park will read a few and clue in the APS? Naw. 🙂

  • Andy Kumar

    Patent examiner says, “One of ORDINARY SKILL in the art would have cause to doubt Levi report (and methodology)….” That says it all. No need to look for LENR suppression conspiracies.
    As they say in Missouri,

    “I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You HAVE GOT TO SHOW me.” Good common sense attitude for those NOT skilled in the art or science of it.

    http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/history/slogan.asp

    • GreenWin

      Andy, this must be the very statement issued by the Indian Academies of Science. Apparently they like what they’ve been shown since they just published a Special Section on LENR in their peer-reviewed Current Science journal. There are some 30+ papers in this special section. Maybe Robert Park will read a few and clue in the APS? Naw. 🙂

      • Andy Kumar

        Green,

        You and I, both know that the guest editor of the special section is an old retired bureaucrat. The journal may be peer reviewed but the articles certainly are not. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. Also remember that all peers are not created equal. Until Nature accepts it, this special section does not amount to a hill of beans.

        http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/hill-beans-farm-expressions-hay-hedging/1781071.html

        • GreenWin

          Andy, you apparently failed to read Abd ul-Rahman Lomax clear description of the peer review process for the Special Section.

          Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal established in 1932,
          published by the Current Science Association in collaboration with the
          Indian Academy of Sciences.

          Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from researchers in the field of LENR. These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer reviewer assigned by Current Science.

          The anonymous reviewer of my paper was familiar with physics and not with cold fusion, and was skeptical at first. Yes, I modified my paper extensively in response to his critique and it is, no doubt, better for it. Apparently, he was convinced, he gave a glowing recommendation for publication.

          There are some very good papers in this collection, and others that are brief reports on activity in various nations or organizations.” (reprinted by Mr Moho, in ECW 17 days ago) http://bit.ly/1MCV8bw

          Your lack of attention to detail is puzzling Andy. Recall refusal to accept Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek’s work on “time crystal” perpetual motion? Details (and willingness to learn) are fundamental to the scientific method.

  • protn7

    ordinary skill in the art means the average tech who is trained in whatever technical field “art” the patent talks about. Not an average person. Rossis device is pretty simple. Sooner or later there will be courses at community colleges. Its about as technical as running a boiler or generator plant. They put gas in the catalyst- and it makes heat by a low energy nuclear process. instead of burning the gas, it releases heat from transforming the nickel into copper. You don’t have to understand it completely to use it.

  • protn7

    I think there’s something wrong, like they are double standarding Rossi. They have given patents on low energy nuclear devices to Ikegami and Mitsubishi and widom. Widom hasn’t shown a working device, just theoretical stuff on paper, and the Ikegami patents cover applications of successful lab bench experiments but they never built a working reactor that generates electricity or heat for a useful purpose.

    Maybe Rossis claims are too broad since he claims to have built a practical reactor. The Levi experiments, taken on their face, show that his reactor makes heat on a small scale. There’s a lot of inconsistency in the USPTO.

    • Anon2012_2014

      As stated by the patent examiner:

      1) Rossi don’t show how to build it to someone skilled in the art (of building science experiments). No one knows what’s on the inside. No one knows how the power supply works. Thus far, no one has replicated. That is sufficient reasons for rejection.

      2) Rossi doesn’t show convincingly to the patent examiner that the device works. As no one has fully reproduced the experiment (Parkhomov’s tube cracks within 24 hours of operation), and as there is no peer review papers (yet), the examiner doesn’t believe it works. He pointed out the usual flaws in the Levi paper. If Rossi had provided the cookbook to (1) above, it would be different, but he didn’t.

      Hence, Rossi’s patent is rejected.

      What happens if Parkhomov or MFMP gets a public validation within 90 days is unclear. They also state that the Rossi patent is obvious from prior patents that use a proton beam to create fusion. I think its different and sufficiently novel, but the patent examiner says otherwise.

  • Anon2012_2014

    As stated by the patent examiner:

    1) Rossi don’t show how to build it to someone skilled in the art (of building science experiments). No one knows what’s on the inside. No one knows how the power supply works. Thus far, no one has replicated. That is sufficient reasons for rejection.

    2) Rossi doesn’t show convincingly to the patent examiner that the device works. As no one has fully reproduced the experiment (Parkhomov’s tube cracks within 24 hours of operation), and as there is no peer review papers (yet), the examiner doesn’t believe it works. He pointed out the usual flaws in the Levi paper. If Rossi had provided the cookbook to (1) above, it would be different, but he didn’t.

    Hence, Rossi’s patent is rejected.

    What happens if Parkhomov or MFMP gets a public validation within 90 days is unclear. They also state that the Rossi patent is obvious from prior patents that use a proton beam to create fusion. I think its different and sufficiently novel, but the patent examiner says otherwise.

  • Chris, Italy

    He still doesn’t get it that he can’t patent a secret. Not even now, with Parkhomov’s work he could at least include what information is already public, just enough for the skilled to obtain the effect without Parkhomov’s advice. And now of course he’s gotta rely on Parkhomov not taking advantage.

    • GreenWin

      Chris, try and keep up with the discussion. Rossi/IH are protecting IP through international Trade Secret law. It is more enforceable than patent law. And it’s secret. Just like technology developed by military to keep the peace.

      • Chris, Italy

        Which doesn’t remove the fact that you can’t patent what you protect with international Trade Secret law. Nor does it remove the fact that it’s already somewhat less secret now. Once upon a time, there existed an amazing thing called logic. Seems so rare today.

        • GreenWin

          Chris, IF you read my post below citing the example of Wyeth using both patent and Trade Secret law – you would better understand. The USPTO has provided Industrial Heat and Rossi with an unimpeachable paper trail detailing his invention. This combined with Trade Secret protection and the eventual acceptance of theory – works to IH’s advantage.

          • Chris, Italy

            Sorry Green but, IF you get it straight, you would realize that Premarin and the ecat are two completely different kettles of fish. Also, IF you got it even straighter, you would even see that the article you linked to says exactly what I said (you can’t patent a secret) and even hints at why both forms of IP are involved in the case of Premarin. It even generalizes as follows:

            “Importantly, as with Premarin, trade secret law and patent law can
            coexist. Different forms of intellectual property rights can be used to
            protect valuable information. Patents often protect the broad concept,
            while trade secrets protect the production details.”

            Not only do I, the dumbest nitwit here, fail to see anything likes this in the case of the ecat, but the replication by Parkhomov so soon after the Lugano test spilling a detail or two is actually a demonstration that it ain’t only me that’s too dumb to see the relevance. That same article’s final considerations even includes what my line has been, for quite a time here, as to why trade secret is no use for IH and Rossi. All they are banking on right now is desifn details and high production capacity.

          • GreenWin

            I have not called or named you “the dumbest nitwit,” Chris… you did. I shall repeat the salient fact: The USPTO has provided Industrial Heat and Rossi with an unimpeachable
            paper trail detailing his invention. This combined with Trade Secret
            protection and the eventual acceptance of theory – works to IH’s
            advantage.

            But I understand E-Cat denial is a part of skeptic’s agenda. At any rate no harm meant. Apologies if you took it that way.

          • Chris, Italy

            I dunno I don’t get your point Green. I guess it’s just too complicated for a dumb nitwit.

          • telessar

            Green, I am an attorney working in IP and Chris is basically right on this point. Trade secrets and patents are generally mutually exclusive.

            To give a simplified explanation: the whole idea of a patent is that the Government gives you a limited monopoly over the idea in exchange for publishing how the idea works. You can’t try to hold back the secret of how the thing works and expect to obtain a patent.

            The idea behind a trade secret is basically the opposite – you just keep your invention secret. There is no substantial protection for your idea if it becomes public or someone else discovers it. The burden is on you to keep your idea secret.

            An inventor like Rossi can either explain how his invention works and try to get a patent, OR he can keep it as a trade secret. “An unimpeachable paper trail” doesn’t matter except in the context of litigating patents – it doesn’t actually add any real IP protection for an idea.

  • Chris, Italy

    He still doesn’t get it that he can’t patent a secret. Not even now, with Parkhomov’s work he could at least include what information is already public, just enough for the skilled to obtain the effect without Parkhomov’s advice. And now of course he’s gotta rely on Parkhomov not taking advantage.

    • GreenWin

      Chris, try and keep up with the discussion. Rossi/IH are protecting IP through international Trade Secret law. It is more enforceable than patent law. And it’s secret. Just like technology developed by military to keep the peace.

      • Chris, Italy

        Which doesn’t remove the fact that you can’t patent what you protect with international Trade Secret law. Nor does it remove the fact that it’s already somewhat less secret now. Once upon a time, there existed an amazing thing called logic. Seems so rare today.

        • GreenWin

          Chris, IF you read my post below citing the example of Wyeth using both patent and Trade Secret law – you would better understand. The USPTO has provided Industrial Heat and Rossi with an unimpeachable paper trail detailing his invention. This combined with Trade Secret protection and the eventual acceptance of theory – works to IH’s advantage.

          • Chris, Italy

            Sorry Green but, IF you get it straight, you would realize that Premarin and the ecat are two completely different kettles of fish. Also, IF you got it even straighter, you would even see that the article you linked to says exactly what I said (you can’t patent a secret) and even hints at why both forms of IP are involved in the case of Premarin. It even generalizes as follows:

            “Importantly, as with Premarin, trade secret law and patent law can
            coexist. Different forms of intellectual property rights can be used to
            protect valuable information. Patents often protect the broad concept,
            while trade secrets protect the production details.”

            Not only do I, the dumbest nitwit here, fail to see anything likes this in the case of the ecat, but the replication by Parkhomov so soon after the Lugano test spilling a detail or two is actually a demonstration that it ain’t only me that’s too dumb to see the relevance. That same article’s final considerations even includes what my line has been, for quite a time here, as to why trade secret is no use for IH and Rossi. All they are banking on right now is desifn details and high production capacity.

          • GreenWin

            I have not called or named you “the dumbest nitwit,” Chris… you did. I shall repeat the salient fact: The USPTO has provided Industrial Heat and Rossi with an unimpeachable
            paper trail detailing his invention. This combined with Trade Secret
            protection and the eventual acceptance of theory – works to IH’s
            advantage.

            But I understand E-Cat denial is a part of skeptic’s agenda. At any rate no harm meant. Apologies if you took it that way.

          • Chris, Italy

            I dunno I don’t get your point Green. I guess it’s just too complicated for a dumb nitwit.

          • telessar

            Green, I am an attorney working in IP and Chris is basically right on this point. Trade secrets and patents are generally mutually exclusive.

            To give a simplified explanation: the whole idea of a patent is that the Government gives you a limited monopoly over the idea in exchange for publishing how the idea works. You can’t try to hold back the secret of how the thing works and expect to obtain a patent.

            The idea behind a trade secret is basically the opposite – you just keep your invention secret. There is no substantial protection for your idea if it becomes public or someone else discovers it. The burden is on you to keep your idea secret.

            An inventor like Rossi can either explain how his invention works and try to get a patent, OR he can keep it as a trade secret. “An unimpeachable paper trail” doesn’t matter except in the context of litigating patents – it doesn’t actually add any real IP protection for an idea.

  • GreenWin

    Andy, you apparently failed to read Abd ul-Rahman Lomax clear description of the peer review process for the Special Section.

    Current Science is a multidisciplinary journal established in 1932,
    published by the Current Science Association in collaboration with the
    Indian Academy of Sciences.

    Last year, the editors of the section solicited papers from researchers in the field of LENR. These papers went through two reviews, first by the special section editors and then, if the editors decided to forward the paper, by a normal peer reviewer assigned by Current Science.

    The anonymous reviewer of my paper was familiar with physics and not with cold fusion, and was skeptical at first. Yes, I modified my paper extensively in response to his critique and it is, no doubt, better for it. Apparently, he was convinced, he gave a glowing recommendation for publication.

    There are some very good papers in this collection, and others that are brief reports on activity in various nations or organizations.” (reprinted by Mr Moho, in ECW 17 days ago) http://bit.ly/1MCV8bw

    Your lack of attention to detail is puzzling Andy. Recall refusal to accept Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek’s work on “time crystal” perpetual motion? Details (and willingness to learn) are fundamental to the scientific method.

  • Bernie777

    I am not a patent expert but the “tone”
    of Mr. Burke’s rejection seemed to suggest he things the e-cat is a fraud. Could those of you used to reading these
    reports tell me if you agree Mr. Burke is projecting this opinion?

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I am not a patent expert but the “tone” of Mr. Burke’s rejection seemed to suggest he things the e-cat is a fraud. Could those of you used to reading these reports tell me if you agree Mr. Burke is projecting this opinion?

  • bkrharold

    The criticism of thermal measurement was justified, but demanding that a new discovery must conform to the current “art” or state of knowledge, and that that the inventor must be able to explain the fundamental mechanism is unreasonable. If all inventions were held to this standard, the world be flat, and the sun would revolve around the earth. The USPTO is a thoroughly corrupt organization, the tool of the 1%

  • bkrharold

    The criticism of thermal measurement was justified, but demanding that a new discovery must conform to the current “art” or state of knowledge, and that that the inventor must be able to explain the fundamental mechanism is unreasonable. If all inventions were held to this standard, the world be flat, and the sun would revolve around the earth. The USPTO is a thoroughly corrupt organization, the tool of the 1%

  • catfish

    I hope Andrea Rossi continues his struggle with the patent office about this. It is very clear they were biased from the get go.

  • catfish

    I hope Andrea Rossi continues his struggle with the patent office about this. It is very clear they were biased from the get go.

  • Frank, you have to remember that “final” does not always mean final with them. My latest patent took me 7 years back and forth with the patent office. During that time I received three notices similar to Dr. Rossi’s, one in which they denied all my claims. You just have to be persistent and make you arguments correctly. In the end the patent office grated me all my original claims and my attorney is petitioning for me to recieve additional time extend my patent to account for the lost time in arguing it. Dr. Rossi will have pay additional fees, but even if it takes years with will be worth the effort. Tell him we are all supporting his efforts and to never give up.