Cimpy: First E-cat patent Final rejection by USPTO

Cimpy reported today the final rejection of Rossi's E-cat initial patent

Quote from Cim_PY

By the way, patent rejected on USA side - what a pity, it must have been a conspiracy even NASA/MIT/Uppsala/UniBo/ could not avoid...

portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
12/736,193
Status: Final Rejection Mailed
Status Date: 03-10-2015

Motivations are a "must read"

Display More

Yes a must read.

so Rossi's patent is rejected.

They argue, as many that the lack of calibration of emissivity is problematic. I agree .
That they don't account for Ferrara test is more problematic, as Ferrara test was well calibrated

they argue there is no peer review, not on LENR, this would be lie, but on nickel absorbing hydrogen. It is true there is very few NiH papers and probably none was published.

Extraordinary argument is fallacy as LENr is peer reviewed since long, but that myth is consensus...

More problematic there is the lack of sufficient data in Rossi's patent, which is for me the best reason to reject the patent.

His recent patent submitted by Industrial Heat is much more operative and supported by experimental evidences.

It seems that initial Rossi's patent was submitted in Italy at a period when you could correct few details without resubmitting a new patent. It suspect, like some experts, that Rossi planned to add few details later, avoiding industrial spying as it is common through patent offices.
This regulation changed and he was trapped with that undefendable patent.

What is more shocking is that many arguments will cast ridicule on USPTO soon...

Here we are far from a paper machine based on perpetuum mobile, but on something that may be broke in theory, but that is concrete. it is not to USPTO to decide if something works or not, just to avoid clear perpetuum mobile to flood USPTO.

When you see the number of stupid patents that are granted every day, it is fascinating.

anyway, patent don't protect anything when you have to grow by few power of 10 every year to cover demand.

Andrea Rossi answered about this problem

Quote from Andrea Rossi

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

the patent have many bad point that I consider and that have been highlighted by david french :

• there is theory claims inside... moreover false
• there is undetermined catalysis

The critics rase many good points, as the problem with calibration.

The good point is that many critics of the examiner are abusive. I mean out of his job, biased, hiding accusation of fraud without evidences, assumption of theory. It is not his job to accuse of fraud unless there is clear evidence.
He seems also totally unaware of LENr science, even the peer-reviewed evidences.

Biased, incompetent, beyond the scope of his job.

however the patent have serious problems. Maybe it can be circumvented. Since the catalyst does not exist, it may allow the patent to be accepted. theory is not in the claims but in the description, so maybe not a problem if corrected (eliminated)...

On fusionnefredda blog, they discuss of recent happening in Rossi's patent examination.

to see the exchange, connect to
http://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
then enter
12736193
as application number
go to image file wrapper for exchanged doc, especially AF/D.132

rossi use parkhomov and songsheng claims to support he is replicated.

in REM document Rossi criticize the rejection... one key is that patent office don't need to have explanation of the theory... many other critic of the comments of the examiner.

Rossi in the remarks make many interesting points
- the applicants is not legally required to comprehend the scientific principles on which the practical effectiveness of the invention rests
- the objection of not being operable is based on opinion, not documents
- the PTO is not the guarantor of scientific theory

You make a perfect point in reminding that Patent does not prove a technology.
It is just there to protect it. You can patent a saddle for unicorn if it is well described, and new, and propose some usefulness.

The purpose of usefulness is just to prevent you to protect another application of your imaginary recipe.
If your usefulness is not real, you just have a protection of something not useful.

the fact that USPTO forbid patents that break the laws of physics is just demagogy. Any new technology, any new scientific revolution, is breaking laws.
Try to patent the hot air balloon in 1750, asking to the local catholic priest, and they will jail you for sorcery.

patent are just an indication that someone is investing some time and money in a recipe...
My heuristic is that any patent that contain theory is suspect. theory is a problem, the symptom that people have problem with the reality.

There is problem of theory on both side of the LENR iron curtain. I start to hate theory. the problem is that experiments is a total mess, and most people are not comfortable with uncertainty and disorder.

This is the occasion to read again that article on what is real science.
http://www.wired.com/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/2/

Quote

Science is a deeply frustrating pursuit. Although the researchers were mostly using established techniques, more than 50 percent of their data was unexpected. (In some labs, the figure exceeded 75 percent.) “The scientists had these elaborate theories about what was supposed to happen,” Dunbar says. “But the results kept contradicting their theories. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to spend a month on a project and then just discard all their data because the data didn’t make sense.” Perhaps they hoped to see a specific protein but it wasn’t there. Or maybe their DNA sample showed the presence of an aberrant gene. The details always changed, but the story remained the same: The scientists were looking for X, but they found Y.

This is why many people prefer theory, laws...