New USPTO Patent Applications from Industrial Heat

  • Ahlfors,

    I doubt there is anything to this technology, considering Rossi could not get a customer to buy it. But in the unlikely event there is something to it, I would have to disagree with you that: "the original source of this very peculiar provisional is the convicted and compulsive condominium buyer AR". From what I understand, Piantelli, and maybe Focardi would get the credit.

    I am sure IH is maintaining the provisional "just in case". The minimal cost to keep it active is cheap insurance.

  • Some additional USPTO patent applications from IH IP Holdings that (I believe) have not been cited yet ---

    Methods and Apparatus for Testing Fuel Materials for Exothermic Reactions…=dn%2F20180196026+&d=PG01

    Gas-Loading and Packaging Method and Apparatus…0194625&RS=DN/20180194625

    Gas-Loading and Packaging Method and Apparatus…0194624&RS=DN/20180194624

  • I am sure IH is maintaining the provisional "just in case". The minimal cost to keep it active is cheap insurance.

    Provisionals are not "maintained." Their value is in establishing the priority date of later utility applications that reference the provisional. Provisionals expire after a year and are of no value unless converted to a non-provisional application by being referenced by a utility application. Most (all?) of the IH applications claim priority to the 2016 provisional like this:

    This application claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/347,924, titled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR TESTING FUEL MATERIALS FOR EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS" filed on Jun. 9, 2016 which is incorporated herein in its entirety by this reference.

  • Robert,

    Patent issues are very complex as I have said many times before. I usually appeal to David French's authority when it comes to patent law, but you seem to know what you talk of, so maybe you can explain IH's patent strategy better than I?

    They partnered with Rossi, who partnered with Focardi, who partnered with the genesis of all this NiH science...Piantelli. There is obviously IP being claimed, and fought over, as Rossi has been disputing Piantelli's patent for years now. Recently he was successful, and had it overturned.

    Enter IH, and long story short, IH claimed in their court filings, that they found Rossi had nothing. So they turn all IP over to Rossi in the settlement.

    Rossi/IH part ways, and we all think they are done with Rossi. But not quite, as IH is still doing something with the IP. I call it "maintain", and you say they are doing what?

  • The big question with the IH application is whether any of them will get past the examiners and be issued as patents. A patent must provide sufficient information that one of ordinary skill can make and use the invention. Is there anyone now of ordinary skill in LENR? if so do the patent disclosures have sufficient detail to allow someone to make those inventions work?

    The value to IH is probably more to demonstrate to potential partners and investors that they they believe they have valuable intellectual property and that they are taking appropriate measures to protect that IP. It can be a check box for investors who may need to see patent filings but have no way to evaluate the value of those patents.

    A true value proposition would requite computing the cost of filing the patents vs. their expected value:

    File if: IP filing cost < Likely to issue (low) * Required for future LENR devices (low) * Value if needed (very high)

    But at this point, no one could assign numbers to any of the terms on the right side.

    Instead the real equation is probably:

    File if: Remaining IP budget > filing cost

  • The true value of some of these applications is the song of Rossi's grinding teeth to IH's ears, IMHO.

    The Cat and Ball trademark of Leonardo is jeopardized by the affidavit falsely supportingly the use of a non-operational small module inside the red Doral Plant as a climatizing unit for the laboratory, IMHO.

  • I found a WIPO version there, WO/2018/226903…8226903&redirectedID=true

    There is with much common text, but slight differences

    It refers to the US patent application 62/516384 (see priority documents) which seems identical to the one you found.

    Applicant is Dennis Letts, for IH...

  • Another USPTO patent application from Industrial Heat.

    United States Patent Application 20180374587 Dec-27-2018

    Methods and Apparatus for Triggering Exothermic Reactions

    ABSTRACT: Methods and apparatus are disclosed for triggering and maintaining an exothermic reaction in a reaction material comprising a metal occluded with hydrogen. The reaction material is prepared by loading a hydrogen absorbing material, e.g., a transition metal, with a hydrogen gas that comprises one or more of hydrogen isotopes. Different conditions and system configurations for triggering the exothermic reaction are also disclosed.…0374587&RS=DN/20180374587

  • IH have filed another patent application, this time covering the 'dual laser' triggering,

    They do exactly what is needed: Strong magnet to stabilize the nuclear spin and 2D Stimulation of the nuclear magnetic field to allow the momentum conversion.

    The only problem with this patent is that it is straight forward application of the theory...

  • United States Patent Application 20180374587 Dec-27-2018

    Methods and Apparatus for Triggering Exothermic Reactions

    It looks like they tried out all methods with the basic LENR mechanism. Of course this patent does not disclose enough to reproduce the effect they claim to see as the resonance voltage of deuterium is well defined. They also do not disclose the deuterium carrier. The magnet used to stabilize the spin is again used, but this has been public disclosed in my LENR paper and is of no value in the patent.

    I think the only purpose of such patents is to block certain people to do the same unless they have enough money to show that the IH patents are mostly void.

  • I think they've just patented the 'Safire' type plasma based reactor we were discussing earlier. This type of containment vessel functioning as the cathode would set up a 'just-below' arcing plasma with the 5000V RF applied to the central anode.-providing optimum conditions for medium-range temperature D fusion to occur. Oh well, bang goes my pressure-cooker home-made fusion reactor idea! Still, better plasma control could be achieved using a PULVA1 type reactor-maybe they could try it out since this tech is already in the public domain.

  • Well reading further......go to Fig 6 in the 27 Dec patent and we see a slightly less than one degree Celsius difference between the D reactor and control (no D)-well, that's just pathetic and extremely disappointing. Why on earth show such a pathetic, useless graph? Have they lost the plot completely, maybe trying to sabotage their own patent application

  • I suppose I'm being somewhat sarcastic/facetious but I can just imagine this patent being presented to the board of investors (eg Woodford's £139 million) in IH - so how big a temperature rise do we get per £million invested.....oh yeah one degree!!! Surely they knew roughly how much excess heat would be produced from other expts, then couldn't they engineer the heat sink thermal capacity to show a clear temperature rise? I mean a one degree difference between test and control could have been due to draughty window! Glad we have Ecalox doing sensible work.

  • This is not a Dec 27-2018 patent, is just an application. It is the national phase filing of an earlier international (PCT) application.

    It will not become a patent unless they can convince the examiner that it is new, useful and non-obvious. "Useful" is the hard part. The examiner needs to be convinced it actually works.

  • No patents filed on the SAFIRE-LENR topic as far as my limited search goes-maybe they couldn't file anything because they'd have to officially acknowledge the existence of cold fusion and LENR and potentially lose scientific credibility. No such restrictions on us retired mavericks. Just like to see some benefit from all the LENR research to date. I think the IH patent covers the SAFIRE project methodology apart from the gas-filled hollow anode which was M. Childs invention even though plasmas or double-layers are not mentioned specifically. Sad but true.