Patent Document Anticipates Successful Third Party E-Cat Test Result

Over on the Italian Cobraf forum, poster Nevanlinna has uncovered some interesting documents connected with Andrea Rossi’s US Patent application.

There is a document that was written on September 25th, 2014 by James V. Costigan of the intellectual property law firm Hedman and Costigan in New York City titled “Petition for Suspension of Action under CFR 1.103”.

In the document, Costigan asks the Comissioner for Patents to suspend action on the patent — which has been rejected by the patent examiner because it was considered to be inoperable. Costigan states in the letter that the applicant (Rossi) is aware that third party tests are being carried out, and ‘believes that the results of these tests will be pertinent to the outstanding rejection’, and requests that the prosecution of the application be suspended for a period of two months.

This US federal regulation (CFR 1.103) states the following:

(a) Suspension for cause. On request of the applicant, the Office may grant a suspension of action by the Office under this paragraph for good and sufficient cause. The Office will not suspend action if a reply by applicant to an Office action is outstanding. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must specify a period of suspension not exceeding six months. Any petition for suspension of action under this paragraph must also include:

(1) A showing of good and sufficient cause for suspension of action; and (2) The fee set forth in § 1.17(g), unless such cause is the fault of the Office.

It seems then that one purpose of this third party test is to help Rossi secure his patent, which currently is in trouble. This document is another indication that we should see the report in the near future, and that Rossi has a level of confidence in the results of the test that goes beyond the ‘it could be positive or negative’ statements he has been regularly making.

This is a very good piece of work by Nevanlinna! Check this thread on Cobraf for more details and discussion. The document cited above can be seen here.

  • Broncobet

    You don’t need a theory for a patent. Just leave an ECAT with them, if it works they’ll grant the patent, as it’s an old maxim in patent law that “experiment trumps theory”. If they didn’t grant a patent after a successful demonstration they could sue them.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      There has been the option to provide a so-called “utility model” to the patent office in some countries, but I don’t know if this is possible in the USA. To be honest, I would not expect that a patent examiner nowadays would bother to test a device himself.
      Regarding, theory, you are right that there is no obligation to include it into the application. But the judgment of the examiner with regard to the question whether a device would work or not will be based on theory, which is in the current case state-of-the-art physics. Thus, theory will play a decisive role as long as the function of the device is not proven.
      The only way out of this dilemma seems to be the presentation of a test report by a widely acknowledged, independent institute. A positive test would release the examiner from the requirement to judge about expected practicality, and therefore from considering theoretical aspects.

  • artefact

    “Andrea Rossi
    September 28th, 2014 at 8:11 AM
    Piero Mongioj:
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFORMATION: DEAR READERS: IT IS A TOTAL FRAUD.
    PULSODREAM
    IS TOTALLY UNKNOWN TO US, THEY HAVE USED OUR NAME, MY PHOTOGRAPHY, THE
    PHOTOS AND EMBODIMENTS OF OUR E-CATS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION. THEY ARE
    TRYING TO SELL INVESTMENTS RELATED TO OUR PRODUCTS WITHOUT HAVING EVER
    CONTACTED US OR OBTAINED ANY AUTHORIZATION.
    THEYR OFFER OF INVESTMENT IS A TOTAL CLOWNERY.
    PLEASE BE EXTREMELY AWARE TO PAY THEM ANY SUM, BECAUSE IT IS A FRAUD AND YOUR MONEY WILL BE TOTALLY LOST.
    OUR LEGAL STAFF IA ALREADY WORKING ON THIS ISSUE.
    AGAIN:
    DO NOT GIVE ANY SUM OF MONEY TO “PULSODREAM” BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE
    OUR PRODUCTS, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY LICENSE, THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY
    AUTHORIZATION OF SORT TO DEAL WITH ANY OF OUR PRODUCTS.
    I REPEAT: IT IS A TOTAL FRAUD.
    WARM REGARDS
    DR. ANDREA ROSSI, CEO OF LEONARDO CORPORATION”

  • ecatworld

    This is what Rossi says about it after I notified him:

    “This is a fraudolent website. We do not know them and never had any connection with them. They have no authorization to deal with E-Cats. We never authorized clowneries as the sales they propose. Please give information about what I write in this email !!!”

    • artefact

      wow

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Somebody should ask Rossi if he confirms that connection.

    • ecatworld

      I’ve done so

  • artefact

    THANKS

    • artefact

      “Cartridge is heated up to 1150 degrees Celsius, the frame is washed
      with water, which is converted into steam, rotating the micro turbine,
      which generates power. Efficiency is about 1100%. Toner Cartridge should be refilled once every six months, the cost of filling is 200 €.”

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    Did I understand this correctly:

    This is a petition to the USPTO to wait with the rejection of Rossis patent application another 3 months. But it’s not said why?

    We only can speculate that the report will come within this 3 monaths so that the USPTO has good reasons (successful scientific verification of the invention) to grant the application?

    • Owen Geiger

      That’s what it sounds like, yes.

    • Omega Z

      I believe it stated 2 months, so the report is expected within 2 months or sooner.

  • Jonnyb

    Very likely Rossi and I.H. have seen the report now, or have been told it is positive. I suspect they know the publication date as well. Next week or two is my bet.

  • robyn wyrick

    It’s a bit complicated to see how this will pan out, however, if the TPR comes out in a peer-reviewed journal, not just a preprint, that could be enormous. i don’t know how the USPTO could ignore it.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Yes, that could make the difference, although I don’t know how the patent office values the way of publication, especially when a test would primarily document the function of a device. The fact that this has been a long-term test for the first time could as well be of relevance. However, as far as I remember the examiner who rejected the application referred mainly to theory issues. That means that the testers would have to provide a full explanation of the process, as you say, preferably in a peer reviewed journal. But according to a rumour we have recently heard the reaction is only to 50% understood. So everything remains open…

      • Daniel Maris

        Widom-Larsen (two perfectly reputable phyiscists)have published a full explanation that explains the lack of gamma ray radiation. The response of the USPTO? To ignore it. I am not saying Widom-Larsen’s theory is correct – who can possibly tell? – but it shows dishonesty on the part of the USPTO to give the impression that no one can offer an explanation for the additional heat and lack of gamma rays,

        It is clear that for cold fusion/LENR they are applying extremely high hurdles, that – in my view – it is almost impossible to clear.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Rossi’s application does not refer to WL theory (which doesn’t involve fusion), but to proton capture. WL might be wrong, but it is at least an approach that could be reluctantly accepted by mainstream physicists – although the generation of “heavy electrons” remains a problem. Proton capture under the described conditions is surely not.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    The negative assessment of patent examiner Sean P. Burke dates from March 2014, while the Levi et al. report has been published in May 2013. Does anybody know if it has been taken in account by the examiner? If so, the new TPR would have to present substantially new information to be of any effect on the decision of the office.

    • Daniel Maris

      The first test wasn’t published in a peer reviewed journal of note – that would be enough for the USPTO to ignore it.

  • Omega Z
  • Ophelia Rump

    Well that would mean that they expect the report by November 25th. Otherwise, the request could have been for up to 4 months longer than it was.

    Joy

    • Daniel Maris

      Yep, and given what else Rossi has said, that would suggest to me a late October publication date. Maybe it’s a November issue that appears on say 24th October?

      • Ophelia Rump

        I always give myself 100% margin or error. If something urgent will take one hour I predict 2, people are delighted when you deliver ahead of time, and are cross when you deliver late. I concur with the late October outlook.

  • Freethinker

    Yes,

    a positive verdict in that test report will no doubt be of major importance to secure the patents – likely a number of them are currently filed an awaiting scrutiny. A positive verdict will also – likely – be paramount to continue the development of the ECAT, as a negative report will make it far more difficult to secure new funding, and – equally likely – will make IH, Cherokee and current entourage want to reconsider their taken position.

    With that said, it is well known that it has historically been very difficult – not to say virtually impossible – to secure a LENR/CF patent with USPTO. The tide is turning and with a proper scientific report published in a journal, the old application – for which the initial application date I imagine must be very important in fighting competitors IPs – will have a fair chance to be accepted.

    No doubt we live in interesting times. Facts are scarce. But the promise of the impending report weigh heavy on us all.

    He who waits for good tidings, never wait too long. Or was it, always wait for too long …

    Still, I have a Bollinger in my cooler. As the report of last year already convinced me, I will enjoy that when the report comes, positive or negative as it may be … The Bollinger, that is.

    • Omega Z

      Lack of gaining the IP will only delay of slow down Industial Heat & Rossi. Just a change in operations tack.

  • Curbina

    One could interpret the recent date as a) it was the last due date for the presentation of the act suspension request or b)Rossi received some hints from the team. If b is the case, the 2 months window for the suspension would suggest that the results are not yet ready to serve as examples for the patent. Just my thoughts on this interesting development.