 |
There are currently, 149 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Rossi has been granted US patent on the E-Cat — fuel mix specified
Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 @ 21:36:47 GMT by vlad
|
|
Mats Lewan writes on his "Impossible Invention" blog: (Last updated on August 25, 9.17 pm CET). Today Andrea Rossi
was granted a patent on his LENR based heating device the E-Cat. The
patent, which has the filing date March 14, 2012, can be downloaded
here: US9115913B1
As far as I understand, the patent describes the so-called low
temperature E-Cat that Rossi showed in semi-public demonstrations at
several occasions in 2011, and which is also used in an ongoing 350-day
trial of a 1 MW plant, but since it describes core parts of the
technology it is probably also valid at a certain extent also for more
recent E-Cat models with higher operating temperature. Note that LENR is not mentioned explicitly in the
patent, but also note that the contents of the fuel mix are specified —
lithium and lithium aluminium hydride as fuel and a group 10 element, such as nickel in powdered form
as the catalyst. This is important since fuel and
catalyst specifications are lacking from an earlier patent application
by Rossi on the E-Cat.
The earlier application has widely been considered far to weak to have
chances to be granted. It was originally filed in Italy in April 2008,
and an Italian patent was granted in 2011 but the approval was based on old rules, basically not involving any validation of the claims...
Full story: http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/08/25/rossi-has-been-granted-us-patent-on-the-e-cat/
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
| |
|
| "Rossi has been granted US patent on the E-Cat — fuel mix specified" | Login/Create an Account | 3 comments | Search Discussion |
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Rossi has been granted US patent on the E-Cat — fuel mix specified (Score: 1)
by vlad on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 @ 21:51:12 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Very pertinent comments on the news in http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/08/25/andrea-rossi-granted-e-cat-patent-by-us-patent-office/ [www.e-catworld.com]
As always, intelligent reviews and a great compilation of the latest news on LENR can be found in Dr. Peter Gluck's great blog Ego Out [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro].
Also, please note that Peter is: SEARCHING FOR EGO OUT ASSOCIATES [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro]
"I want to make EGO OUT a more agile and more complete source of LENR news in the spirit of instant and immediate information worldwide. I am searching for close collaborators - later blog associates, partners. In order to compensate the disadvantages of a round planet with time zones (I am at 2 hours later than Moscow and 2 hours earlier as Paris) so for Europe it is OK. I am interested first in colleagues from the Far East (Japan, China but India too) and in North & South America. The Internet cannot replace completely geographical position. It is also about information from primary sources and pre-publication information, direct discussions, phones to authors and researchers, meetings, serious rumor.
Please write to: peter.gluck@gmail.com for discussing the principles of collaboration.
This initiative is based on the prediction that next year there will be at least 5-10 times more LENR news daily than now. I also hope this will solve the problem of blog heritage and EGO OUT will continue when I will be busy applying what I have learned from the Phoenix Birds. Thank you in advance." - Peter Gluck
|
|
|
Andrea Rossi E-cat Patent Application Rejected in 2016 (Score: 1)
by vlad on Tuesday, January 19, 2016 @ 20:51:01 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | This is from Dr. Peter Gluck site Ego Out: David
French explains us the professional aspect- patenting methodology- re
the Rossi patent rejected the third time. Thanks a lot, dear David- we
have to learn from you
Andrea Rossi E-cat Patent Application Rejected in 2016
What’s Next for Rossi and Industrial Heat, LLC?
http://freeenergyscams.com/andrea-rossi-e-cat-patent-application-rejected-in-2016-whats-next-for-rossi-and-industrial-heat-llc/ [freeenergyscams.com]
This
web posting is obviously made by persons who want to show that Andrea
Rossi is not genuine in his representations in the field of ColdFusion.
I cannot subscribe to that position as a definite conclusion. I am
content to wait for the results of the one-year, 1 MW test due in March -
April, 2016. But I will initially make some remarks about the
patenting process governing Rossi's referenced application.
Rossi's
recent rejection by the US Patent Office Examiner on January 11, 2016
is part of a patenting process that began when he filed his original
application back on August 4, 2009. That application claims priority
from an Italian application made April 9, 2008, but is permitted to
contain additional material over the Italian filing. It is important to
appreciate that this application represents Rossi's thoughts at the
time of his 2009 filing. He's not allowed to amend the "story" in his
application after the formal filing has been made. This application
also adopts a style that I strongly recommend against, namely attempting
to provide a theory as to why an apparatus or construction produces
promised results. Not a good idea.
This
application has wound its way through the Patent Cooperation Treaty, a
system for processing applications internationally on a central basis,
followed by a National Entry filing at the US Patent Office. The US
Examiner criticized this application on similar grounds to the present
grounds in a first Office Action a year and half ago, to which Rossi
replied, or rather his attorney of the day replied at that time. The
Examiner then rejected this application a 2nd time, which under US rules
is a "final" rejection.
However, by paying a
substantial fee and filing of Request for Continued Examination - RCE,
Rossi can start the examination process over. He did so and on June 12,
2015 filed further submissions against the Examiner's final rejection.
Since Rossi filed an RCE, the Examiner is obliged to reply once again
with a fresh Office Action. This action is not final because when you
file an RCE you get an extra chance to amend your claims after the
Examiner comments on the RCE submissions. The application is now at the
stage where we are awaiting further comments from the applicant.
The
basis of all of the Examiner’s rejections has been fundamentally
founded on the premise that the disclosed invention, and the methodology
provided to describe how it works, is not believable. Normally, the
Patent Office takes assertions made by a patent application at face
value, as if they are true. But if the Examiner can present a case that
the allegations in the patent application are, on the balance of
probability, not likely to be accepted as being true by informed,
reasonable people in the field, then the Examiner can ask for proof that
the assertions are correct.
The
field in this case is being taken by the Examiner as being the universe
of Physics, and not the universe of believers in Cold Fusion.
In
order to overcome the Examiner's assertion that the results are not
believable Rossi filed a copy of the Lugano Report and other materials.
The Examiner in this recent Office Action has simply said: "Not good
enough; I still don't think your claims of excess heat are believable".
Consequently, as this is an RCE, Rossi's attorneys will have one more
bite at the apple to file material that might satisfy the Examiner.
This
application has a significance far beyond the US patent that issued to
Rossi's Leonardo Corporation on August 25, 2015. That patent had claims
which were quite specific to a special configuration said to produce
excess heat. This patent application contains the remarkably broad
opening Claim 1 that reads as follows:
"1.
A method for carrying out an exothermal reaction of nickel and
hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of
providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric particle nickel
powder and injecting into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a
temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater
than 2 bars.”
The
interlineation shows the amendment made before the US Patent Office by
Rossi's attorneys. It is virtually meaningless in terms of the
objective of obtaining an Allowance for the grant of a US patent. In
fact, this amendment broadens the scope of the claim.
The
scope of this claim is extraordinary. If a patent were to issue based
on this claim, then it would approach the category of being a Master
Patent, or a patent that would dominate the field. The claim has
defects that the Examiner has not raised. For example, the words "much
greater than 150°C" and "a pressure much greater than 2 bars" are both
indefinite. But the Examiner hasn't even bothered to raise this
objection.
Further, the Examiner has not criticized the application for its reference to:
"[0025]
In applicant exothermal reaction the hydrogen nuclei, due to a high
absorbing capability of nickel therefor, are compressed about the metal
atom nuclei, while said high temperature generates internuclear
percussions which are made stronger by the catalytic action of optional elements,"(emphasis added)
This
is an application filed at the time when the US law required an
applicant to disclose the "best mode" for carrying out an invention.
Disclosing that there is a better mode that is not disclosed, should be a
grounds for rejecting this application. The applicant's attorney has
endeavored to address this issue unilaterally by deleting the following
Claim 8 from the application:
"8. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used."However,
having disclosed the existence of special "catalyze materials", the
deletion of this claim does not overcome a grounds for objection based
on failure to describe the best mode.
It
is understandable that Rossi would try and keep this patent application
alive. It's scope would be remarkable if issued. Of course, even if
issued, the patent could be challenged by a post-grant Opposition
proceeding before the US patent office, or in any litigation in which
the patent Owner attempts to assert the patent. The advantage for Rossi
is that, if the patent doesn't have to be tested until litigation at
some date in the future, then by that future date there may be enough
evidence in existence that everything that he's saying in his patent
application could be found to be true.
Some
persons ask why the Patent Office is insisting that the truth of these
type of applications be established prior to its grant. They observe
that if Cold Fusion is impossible, then there will never be an occasion
when the patent will be asserted in Court. So why make a big fuss now?
Others say that the Patent Office must be careful not to grant patents that could possibly be, and “engine of fraud".
David French
Source: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/01/jan-19-2016-lenr-learning-about-patents.html [egooutpeters.blogspot.ro]
|
|
|
|
|
