About Crew Cold Fusion Radio

Categories Patents Featured Videos

Events Ac on World Voices

Poetry Contact What is cold fusion?

AA

Archives
June 2012 (2) May 2012 (14) April 2012 (8) March 2012 (14) February 2012 (9) January 2012 (11) December 2011 (8) November 2011 (13) October 2011 (23) September 2011 (13) August 2011 (16) July 2011 (16) June 2011 (18) May 2011 (12) April 2011 (9) March 2011 (11) February 2011 (7) January 2011 (8) December 2010 (10) November 2010 (12) October 2010 (12) September 2010 (6) August 2010 (10) July 2010 (13) June 2010 (10)

May 30, 2012 / David J. French / 5 comment(s) / Patents

[Translate]

This pos ng is being republished with hyperlinks. The following is a further pos ng in a series of ar cles by David French, a patent a orney with 35 years experience, which will review issues of interest touching on the eld of Cold Fusion. Following the April 23, 2012 pos ng on ColdFusionNow one of the commentators observed as follows: The US Patent Oce has become a grave yard for Cold Fusion applica ons. I wonder what would happen if the powers that be anoint one par cular LENR applica on. . Frankly, it is hard to believe all the LENR patents are failing to pass US Patent Oce muster due to failure to prove that the device works as promised. There seems to be a widely held impression that the US Patent Oce is refusing to gran ng patents rela ng to Cold Fusion devices. This is both true and not true. Here is the background. There is actually a class in the US patent oce classica on system for inven ons that relate to Cold Fusion. Here it is: Class 376 INDUCED NUCLEAR REACTIONS: PROCESSES, SYSTEMS, AND ELEMENTS Subclass 100 NUCLEAR FUSION - pending applica ons in AppFT Database for CCL/376/100: 79 applica ons.- issued
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

patents in US Patent Collec on db for CCL/376/100: 65 patents. (Searches done May 29, 2012) A review of these applica ons and patents will show that most do not all relate to Cold Fusion. Here are the results obtained by adding Cold Fusion as a search term: Subclass 100 NUCLEAR FUSION - applica ons in AppFT Database for CCL/376/100 and Cold Fusion: 21 applica ons. - patents in US Patent Collec on db for CCL/376/100 and Cold Fusion: 27 patents. However Cold Fusion does not appear in any of the claims of the referenced patents. It does appear in the claims of 2 of the referenced applica ons: PUB. APP. NO. Title 1. 20100008461 Cold Fusion apparatus Inventor: Hodgson; John Andrew; (Safety Harbor, FL) 2. 20070140400 Cold Fusion apparatus Inventor: Hodgson; John Andrew; (Safety Harbor, FL) The rst, later applica on published in 2010, replaces the earlier applica on which was abandoned. Neither of these applica ons have been examined to the point of being allowed to issue as a patent. Of the 27 issued patents containing the word Cold Fusion it is apparent even just from the tles that they do not necessarily relate to that eld precisely. For example, the reference to: United States Patent 6,024,935 issued to Randall Mills et al. on February 15, 2000 and en tled Lower-energy hydrogen methods and structures only refers to Cold Fusion in the list of prior art documenta on. Leaving Class 376 for the moment to iden fy other patents, US patent 7,893,414 en tled Apparatus and method for absorp on of incident gamma radia on and its conversion to outgoing radia on at less penetra ng, lower energies and frequencies issued to La ce Energy LLC (Chicago, IL) on February 22, 2011 on an inven on by Lewis G. Larsen of Chicago, IL and Allan Widom of Brighton, MA This patent is not classied as being directed to Cold Fusion technology. The abstract of this patent reads as follows: Abstract Gamma radia on (22) is shielded by producing a region of heavy electrons (4) and receiving incident gamma radia on in such region. The heavy electrons absorb energy from the gamma radia on and re-radiate it as photons (38, 40) at a lower energy and frequency. The heavy electrons may be produced in surface plasmon polaritons. Mul ple regions (6) of collec vely oscilla ng protons or deuterons with associated heavy electrons may be provided. Nanopar cles of a target material on a metallic surface capable of suppor ng surface plasmons may be provided. The region of heavy electrons is associated with that metallic surface. The method induces a breakdown in a BornOppenheimer approxima on Apparatus and method are described. This patent was classied in US class 250 , subclass 515.1. US class 250 relates to Radiant Energy, and subclass 515.1 is dened as follows: 515.1 Shields: This subclass is indented under subclass 505.1. Subject ma er comprising means to absorb radiant energy not elsewhere provided for. Subclass 505.1 in turn is dened as follows: 505.1 Radia on Controlling Means: This subclass is indented under the class deni on. Subject ma er comprising means to modify, contain or eliminate at least some of the emana ons or (or caused by, in the case of secondary emissions) a source of invisible radia on. Accordingly, while the Widom and Larsen patent is very relevant to the eld of Cold Fusion, as its claims are not focused on genera ng excess energy from a Cold Fusion
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

eect, it has been classied elsewhere than US class and subclass 376/100. Returning to Class 376/100, this Class is a catchall class for inven ons that relate to nuclear fusion generally. Here is the subclass deni on: 100 Nuclear Fusion This subclass is indented under the class deni on. Subject ma er comprising structures and processes in which two reac ng nuclei are combined to yield at least one nucleus having a greater mass than either of the reac ng nuclei. (1) Note. Subject ma er of this subclass and of the subclasses indented hereunder may include, for example, reac ons and methods including neutron generators wherein the neutron is a product of a fusion reac on, e.g., A D-T reac on. (2) Note. Patents are included in this and indented subclasses even if there is failure of the system to actually obtain fusion if it is clear that the intent or aim of the patent is to obtain it. (3) Note. Neutrons from an ionized or plasma system or reac on may be appropriately u lized or moderated to bring about or cause a ssion-type nuclear reac on. (4) Note. Energy or heat of a nuclear ssion reac on system may be appropriately u lized to bring about ioniza on to plasma or fusion reac on levels. Classifying Cold Fusion inven ons in this class and subclass is really an act of despair. That category is very broad. Many dozens of further subclasses address par cular cases of a nuclear fusion process. The higher subclass is only used if there is no exis ng more precise subclass. There is no US specic subclass for a Cold Fusion inven on. This specic subclass 376/100 presupposes that the nuclear reac on taking place is two reac ng nuclei are combined to yield at least one nucleus having a greater mass than either of the reac ng nuclei. Perhaps this event occurs in Cold Fusion, perhaps not. It may be that only neutron absorp on occurs a er neutrons are created, followed by ssion. If that is what a patent applica on represents as occurring, then US Patent Oce Examiners may hesitate to place such an applica on in Class 376/100. Nevertheless, this is where most Cold Fusion inven ons based on increasing the mass of atomic nuclei are likely to be classied un l a more specic subclass is created. This ends Part 1 of this pos ng on patent classica on as it relates to Cold Fusion. Part 1 has addressed the tradi onal classica on system used at the US patent oce. There is a separate classica on system in eect in Europe. This is the Interna onal Patent Classica on IPC. Part 2 will address the treatment of Cold Fusion under the IPC. David French is a re red patent a orney and the principal and CEO of Second Counsel Services. Second Counsel provides guidance for companies that wish to improve their management of Intellectual Property. For more informa on visit: www.SecondCounsel.com. David French is prepared to address ques ons included as commentaries to any of his pos ngs or by direct email. In par cular, he would like to learn what people need to know in order to be er understand patents.

Greg Goble / Reply Mr. French, Thanks! I ve learned from reading your ar cles.

June 1, 2012 at 4:45 am

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Now that NASA has dened this science and the parameters of the art will the patent oce create a class or subclass for these submissions? W hat class were NASA patents led under? Greg

[Translate]

David J. French / Reply

June 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Patents and patent applica ons are being classied and reclassied con nuously as lings start to mount in numbers that jus fy establishing a new subclass. The process takes me but generally this may occur once 10 or 20 candidates for such a new subclass are before the Patent O ce. The Patent O ce is not par cularly concerned whether NASA has led a patent applica on. Filing a patent applica on can be a specula ve exercise. A ling does not represent an endorsement of a whole new eld of technology. I would not place any great weight in the ling of anybodys patent applica on unless, when you read the applica on through it makes sense. Even then, I would take the representa ons with a grain of salt. You should expect a patent applica on that makes grand representa ons to be tested and validated by others who hope to make valuable improvements. W hen you hear that others have validated a patents representa ons, then you can place greater trust in what has been disclosed

[Translate]

Brad Arnold / Reply

May 31, 2012 at 10:24 am

Mr French: what classica on do LENR reactor designs fall under? Wouldnt proof of concept (i.e. proof of excess energy generated a CO P above 1) be enough to successfully get the US Pa ent oce to grant a pa ent for the device? I suppose the rst E-Cats will have to have a pa ent pending lable on them.

[Translate]

GreenW in / Reply

May 31, 2012 at 7:18 pm

Brad, in order to win a Pa ent Pending label one would need to exercise precogni ve diagnos c powers the likes of which might void the Galac c Prime Direc ve. However, if such tle were to be allowed I would recommend it apply to the gaggle of trolls and skeptopaths that scurry about these LENR forums.

[Translate]

David J. French / Reply Brad has asked:

June 1, 2012 at 4:38 pm

what classica on do LENR reactor designs fall under? Wouldnt proof of concept (i.e. proof of excess energy generated a CO P above 1) be enough to successfully get the US Pa ent oce to grant a patent for the device? I suppose the rst E-Cats will have to have a patent pending label on them. I f you check the hyperlinks which I have now added to the above pos ng, you will see that one category for cold fusion patents is Class 376/100. Try reading the class deni on. But do not expect all patents to be placed in that category, even if they describe a cold fusion process. Andrea Rossis applica on en tled and published as 20110005506 on January 11, 2011 is not classied under fusion at all. I t is classied in US Class 126/263.01. This class is en tled: Class 126 Stoves and Furnaces. Subclass 263.01 addresses Heaters-chemical. This appears to be a classica on error.

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

The Rossi applica on refers repeatedly in the descrip on to Cold Fusion and a ributes the benets of the inven on to a cold fusion eect. However, the Classiers have focused on the useful result delivered by claim 1 of the patent. That claim reads as follows: 1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal reac on of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in that said method comprises the steps of providing a metal tube, introducing into said metal tube a nanometric par cle nickel powder and injec ng into said metal tube a hydrogen gas having a temperature much greater than 150.degree. C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars. There is no reference anywhere in this claim to a cold fusion eect. The classica on of this patent can be changed by the Examiner once the le is taken up for examina on. Probably the Examiner will ask Rossi to le evidence showing that a hexothermal reac on (a spelling error) actually occurs when the steps described are carried out. The Examiner may object that the process is not useful if it requires more energy to create the result then is produced. The Examiner may also show from the prior art that the absorp on of hydrogen by nickel is inherently an exothermal reac on, a reac on that has been done before, invalida ng the claim because it is not restricted to something that is new. Un l this applica on is nally rejected by the Patent O ce, Rossi can con nue to represent that he has a Patent Pending at the US Patent O ce.

[Translate]

N ame (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Website

Message (required)

Submit comment

Top of Page About / Crew / Cold Fusion Radio / Categories / Patents / Featured Videos / Events / Ac on / World Voices / Poetry / Contact / W hat is cold fusion? 2012 CO LD FUSI O N NOW ! All rights reserved. Created by brandwerk. FREE ENERGY FO R ALL M ANK I ND

Follow

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com