The following evaluation of the E-Cat claimed by Mr. Andrea Rossi has been drafted by Dale G. Basgall, and from ongoing notes regarding patentability logic. Currently the E-Cat is not available in product form as applied for in an international Patent from more than 6 years ago by Mr. Rossi and his wife, as well claimed to be in operation by Mr. Rossi. The demonstrations and public claims by Mr. Rossi began early January 2011 for us to view on the intranet. He claimed to have invented and manufactured a simple metal device and pictured a plumber and his tool bag setting on the floor. The illusion was that it was so simple the device could be assembled from a plumbers parts bag and assembled by a plumber.
So Mr. Rossi began to lead us to believe that he in fact had developed and reduced to practice a small table top apparatus to generate heat for less money than any other current method as well with no harmful emissions.
The following text is from a daily evaluation starting January 2011 as well ends with a summary today February 17, 2014. The entire perspective is from patentability logic and some rules that are critical to obtaining a US Patent (valid).
There is huge money at stake with the claims from Mr. Andrea Rossi. This evaluation is from a patentability viewpoint and focuses on future patent formats that will be allowed by the USPTO within this field.
Project Italy is an inventors evaluation of the current story of the E-Cat. The name E-Cat comes from a man who claims to have invented a mixture of elements that react together and produce heat. This inventor Mr. Andrea Rossi is from Italy, the friends he has that assisted him to come up with this are also from Italy. The manufacturing company that the inventor Rossi had chosen to assist in the manufacturing of the E-Cat was Defkalion an Italian company.
Most all major players in this story to this point are from Italy and this storyline has been fabricated using information available from Mr. Rossi during the past months of development of this story. The claims this inventor Andrea Rossi has made will literally revolutionize American History when they materialize in physical form. The individuals interested are focusing on a test to be performed on or about the 28th of October 2011 for a power system using many cascaded individual apparatus (e-cats) and the method as written within the claims of both the Italian Patent and the U.S. Patent application.
This evaluation is meant to be used as an example to other inventors as a real time invention that an independent inventor from Italy (Mr. Rossi) claims and will be a world changing invention when the method and apparatus of this claimed technology is fully implimented in the United States of America. This is history in the making and every inventors dream invention "if" the paperwork has been done correctly.
The story examples a scenario many inventors go through in the patenting process and examples the timeline needed for inventions to be created and then to further be reduced to practice, and result in an operating product worth money in royalties for the next 20 years "if" a U.S. patent is granted to Mr. Rossi.
This evaluation Project Italy is from the viewpoint of an inventor, the information extracted from what has been available in videos has been reviewed by many concerned Americans.
An inventor is not required to file for a U.S. patent on his or her product; an issued U.S. patent to an inventor for a product is required for the inventor to legally collect royalties on the written allowed claims and to prevent others from offering for sale and distributing the patented invention. If there is no issued U.S. patent on a product an inventor has little hope to profit from an invention. If a patent is not granted on a product in the U.S. and a manufacturer spends time and money at manufacturing and offering for sale that product, the company takes a risk that someone else will copy the product and also offer the product for sale. It then comes down to who sells for less with the same quality product.
On or about April 8, 2008 Mr. Andrea Rossi applied for an Italian patent with another person named as filing also with rights to the product. In the U.S. the inventor files and then can assign manufacturing rights "after" a U.S. patent is issued. Others named on a U.S. patent are co-inventors.
Mr. Rossi and another person (his wife) filed the Italian Patent with this title:
PASCUCCI MADDALENA [IT/IT]; Via Ezio, 24 1-00192 ROMA (IT) (For All Designated States Except US). ROSSI, Andrea [IT/IT]; (IT) (For US Only)
1. (WO 2009/125444) METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
In the United States the claims of an invention written in the patent are the only items the inventor can legally collect royalties on. Here are the claims in the Italian Patent.
1. A method for carrying out an isothermal (should be exothermal) reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in -that said method comprises injecting hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment, thereby generating energy.
2. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyzer materials are used.
3. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said high temperature is preferably from 150 to 5000C.
4. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said nickel powder filled metal tube at a pressure preferably from 2 to 20 bars.
5. An apparatus for carrying out an exothermal reaction by a method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube filled by a nickel powder and heated to a set temperature, hydrogen being further injected into said metal tube.
6. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder contains catalyzer materials.
7. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a non-constant pulsating pressure.
8. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said temperature is variable.
9. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube is coated, on an outside thereof, by a jacket of water and boron, or steel and boron, and by a lead layer.
10. An apparatus according to claim 9, characterized in that said lead layer is coated by a steel layer.
11. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a steel pipe therethrough a flow of water, or other fluid, is caused to flow, said steel pipe being anempted in a heat exchanging relationship with said metal tube.
12. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder is a nickel isotope powder.
13. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said nickel powder is replaceable by a copper powder.
14. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said apparatus is an apparatus module susceptible to be series and/or parallel coupled with like apparatus modules.
15. An apparatus according to claim 5, characterized in that said exothermal reaction is a multiple exothermal reaction, adapted to provide different atoms depending on an amount of protons interacting with nickel nuclei.
These were the claims that were written in the application and most of the time this application comes after a year and a half into the project, in this case the project is the exothermal reaction.
In my opinion Rossi had the formula for the fuel and exothermal reactions around late 2006 or early 2007 and he spent the next year refining the process and getting paperwork together.
Mr. Rossi then filed for a U.S. patent and used the exact same title and claimed a priority date of the Italian Patent that was issued (with provisions). Also as you read the Rossi U.S. Patent Application Publication you will see the same claims made that were written in the original Italian Patent.
The priority date means you claim the date on the original paperwork filed on your work (invention). For example; if an inventor in the U.S. files a provisional on his or her invention and the product works well, then when the patent application is then filed 364 days later, the inventor can claim the date when the provisional was received via express mail in the USPTO. This is very important to an inventor.
In this case the Italian Patent Application was filed and Rossi claimed that date as priority. If a U.S. patent is granted to Mr. Rossi based on work he claimed priority on in 2008 then the work claimed must be identical and reproduceable. Just because the Italian Patent and Trademark Office allowed Rossi a patent does not mean that Mr. Rossi had an invention at that time that worked as he claims in both the Italian Patent and the U.S. Patent Application.
The U.S. patent laws are very specific and are not bendable.
Based on the past events since February 2010 regarding Rossi, Focardi, Defkalion, et al . brings us ample information that is mostly contradictory. So for quite awhile it didn't feel right, the events, the timelines, or the machinery didn't example the types of contentions made by Mr. Rossi.
Examples are; the tests shown to the public at first without the pulsing solenoid for the hydrogen or the computer controller. So what got viewed with the e-cat was not consistent with the claims of either the U.S. patent application, or the Italian patent.
In January of 2011 a demonstration of the Rossi machine was viewed by fifty invited guests which were from the scientific community as well as others and in March 2011 two highly regarded physicists published an article in support of the Rossi apparatus.
The public was allowed to view the e-cat from videos and many who viewed what was claimed by Rossi compared the claims to what they had seen on video. Mechanics and scientists who viewed these had many questions regarding the set up of the tests and the equipment appeared to be made from a plumbers handbag and not a machine shop. Also what was happening inside the e-cat could not be explained by any physicists.
Ask a nuclear physicist for the reason cold fusion (Rossi claims) cannot be explained, and answers that; we don'thave a coherent theory or a complete list of current questions that make up the standard model of physics. We don't know the right questions to ask that will allow us to come up with an advanced theory (TOE).
Important to any invention is a detailed explanation, the claims are the patent essentially. The patent application in the U.S. must contain a set of claims; each in the form of a single sentence and construed to define the "meets and bounds" of the invention, in the form of a combination of elements and should particularly point out the invention.
Important is that; by reading the claims of either the Italian Patent or the U.S. Patent Application Publication you could not produce the fuel element nor could you produce a product apparatus. This questions that at the time the Italian patent application was filed that there was signs of any product. So in combination with the fact that "what" is happening cannot be scientifically explained makes this problematic when an observer attempts to logically evaluate if this Rossi e-cat is for real.
There is a test happening in Italy today, it is 1:30AM in Hawaii, and in Italy it may be noon or so but anyway the news should start coming through live feeds over the web. This test is being performed by a potential customer of Mr. Rossis, this potential customer is testing a system where a number of the Rossi e-cat single units have been assembled together like a cascade of e-cat's that are meant to produce hot water. No one has viewed a small e-cat on an individual operation test from start up to self run so there is skepticism regarding the ability to perform on the large model claimed at 1meg. This is illusive because they are not converting electricity in to electricity out. They are using mathematics to calculate potential electrical energy output.
Anything can go haywire in these tests, even the most well tested technology can have surprises. I expect maybe water leaks or fluid leaks after the warm up and things get heated up. Deosn't matter really, it appears this story will go on.
Available information regarding the test starting on October 28, 2011 in Italy did start at approximately 9:30AM(IT) and reports were available the following day which is today Saturday the 29th, 2011 @10:37AM(HI-US). In general there were leaks, common to initial startup of fluid heat systems. Some papers include a comment no smoke but made no effort to point out the diesel engines producing electricity to make the operation perform.
Italian patent (Rossi) filed 2008 & United States Patent Application 12/736/193-U.S. class 126/263.01.
Date of - Evaluation 11-05-2011.
(1) The Italian patent was issued with provisions to Mr. Rossi, but protecting the validity of it appears costly and doubtfull of a successful outcome for Mr. Rossi. The United States Patent Application was filed with almost identical claims and only a few words omitted or changed. The US application is far from a complete patent application for either the method or the apparatus.
(2) The claims in the broadest sense are drafted by the inventor prior to the invention being made. The inventor knows the anticipated outcome of his method or invention so these are the basic claims.
Detail of what claims are to the inventor.
Each claim is what the inventor constructs his or her invention around, it is baseline to the design of the product or method. Claims generally start out very broad and then are systematically narrowed as the inventor develops the invention. A claim is not written as a complete sentence but as the object of the sentence starting with "I claim".
While contemplating the invention the claims are very broad and after the product is reduced to practice the broad claims narrow down to a specific detail. The claims are what makes the patent valuable. In the U.S.A. and Italy an issued patent does not necessarily mean that someone had a working model or product. It simply means the inventor or patent applicant has devised a formula and purchased a title to it, like a title to a car. A legal document specifically detailing your invention that allows the inventor legal rights to attempt to stop any company from offereing for sale or manufacturing his or her patented product without compensation for patented claims.
The important word here is "allows", the issued patent grants the inventor the right which allows the inventor to hire a firm of attorneys to go after someone manufacturing the inventors patented product invention. Here is a fact about being an inventor and owning a U.S. patent. Someone that invents independently usually ends up inventing for money or some other tangible exchange for knowledge or whatever motivates the inventor.
First the inventor has to find out who is manufacturing the patented product, then needs to find someone who has purchased the product and from where, then send a letter to cease and decist to whoever is doing the infringements. This costs the inventor a minimum of 250k by the time court is involved, attorneys that need hired, and out of pocket expenses. Also another several years could go by before Federal Court. Some inventors lose motivaion to go forward through this expensive and problematic process of protecting your patent rights issued to you in the Patent. If however the claims have been written broadly and then narrowed down specifically and in precise detail as to how the broadest claims are achieved in the invention then the patent becomes protectable and worth the effort to protect.
In a broad sense Rossi claims; a method for carrying out an isothermal (should be exothermal) reaction of nickel and hydrogen, characterized in -that said method comprises injecting hydrogen into a metal tube filled by a nickel powder, even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars, in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment, thereby generating energy.
An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that is accompanied by the release of heat. In other words, the energy needed for the reaction to occur is less than the total energy released. As a result of this, the extra energy is released, usually in the form of heat.(wikipedia)
In Rossi's first claim (broad) he is claiming his method uses energy (unclarified) nickel and hydrogen to release more energy than was used to create the resulted energy from using the method. Rossi claims that his method formula includes injecting hydrogen into a metal tube filled with nickel powder in a high temperature and pressurized hydrogen gas saturated environment.
NOTE: This is a clean broad claim as described herein, the claim 1 as written by Rossi in the patent publications have a red flag written into the first claim as I have left out in the claim 1 description. The red flags are the words (even of nanometric dimensions, or nickel granules or bars) that allow one to believe he is claiming all other variations possible. This is very weak terminology and leads one to logically deduce that Rossi was still working on the method while writing the patent applications. It is obvious he had no perfected method at the time of writing this claim.
The claims are the most important part of the patent; only the claims define the scope of legal protection or rights the patent owner has. The content of the rest of the issued patent is not independent of, but is contingent upon, the content of the claims.
A generally accepted patent practice requires that the claim take the form of the object of a single sentence, with the first word of the claim beginning with a capital letter and the claim ending with a period. That is the only period which appears in the claim. Other punctuation marks which may appear within the claim are commas, colons, and semicolons. A sentence which includes the claim as it's object also has a subject and a verb. The subject and verb take the form of "I (or We) claim:" (or the equivalent) which only appears once as the heading of the set of claims.
A claim may be indefinite, ambiguous, misleading, vague or obscure, however; the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the patent owner regards as his invention.
(1) An indefinite claim is one that is "not precise," i.e., a claim which does not amount to a definition (such as, it is merely a cataloging of the elements) . An element is a distinct unitary part of a claimed combination which is seperable from the combination.
(2) An ambiguous claim is one that has a doubtful meaning, one that is open to various interpretations.
(3) A misleading claim is one that is deceptive, that tends toward a wrong interpretation.
(4) A vague claim is one that is indistinct, that is lacking in clear thought.
(5) An obscure claim is one in which the thought is concealed.
Standards and conditions which must be met in the disclosing of an invention in the specification of the U.S. Patent Application.
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable anyone skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make use of same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The four requirements in disclosing the invention :
1. a written description of the invention ("description requirement") 2. the manner and process of making the invention ("enabling requirement") 3. the manner and process of using the invention ("enabling requirement") 4. the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out the invention ("best mode requirement").
The description requirement must give at least a general description of the subject matter generally commensurate (using the same units, proportional) with the broadest claim.
The enabling requirement does not require the patent specification to be as detailed as the production specification. The specification should provide more than a mere invitation to experiment, yet a complete working example of an invention is not required. If a patent application does contain a description of at least one example, form, technique, or embodiment of an invention being claimed, it is generally considered sufficient to enable one skilled in the art under the enabling clause.
The patent applicant has the burden of satisfying the best mode requirement so as to withstand an attack later on in patent validity and infringement litigation. This litigation will be necessary only when your product becomes worth millions of dollars to many. The inventor or applicant must disclose the best mode known. If the inventor or applicant knows at the time the application was filed of a better method to practice his/her invention they must disclose it. It would make no difference whether or not the inventor or applicant was the discoverer of that method. It is the best mode known to the inventor or applicant to carry out the invention that must be disclosed, his or her failure to disclose it will not invalidate the patent if he does not know of it or if he does not appreciate that it is the best method.
This is a current sample on the net today 11/20/11- @ecatnews.com that companies are making their own products and not waiting for Mr. Rossi. This news today goes right along with and pertains to the "best mode requirement."
When the inventor tries to describe the best mode in the invention, the requirement of usefulness is used as a baseline. This baseline relates to utility and operativeness. If a device is inoperative, it is not considered to be useful. Perpetual motion machines are unpatentable because they are inoperative. Inventions only capable of serving immoral purposes or only for deceiving the public are considered not useful, of practicle benefit or utility, and thus unacceptable. So as long as the invention has some practical utility, in most cases it is deemed useful. In most cases, the requirement of "useful" is simple to understand and determine.
How this relates to the Rossi story and Italian Patent is that one would question by looking at what has been viewed, the usefulness of a prototype not yet developed. The claims of producing energy do not clarify usefulness. Therefore the best mode requirement cannot be currently evaluated.
Anyone writing a patent on their new and useful power reactor should know the best mode to manufacture the device and the best mode to use it. An example is that Mr. Rossi has an observed reaction generating heat, the water heated is said to be for cooling so the boiling water is secondary to a safety function. Explained out the water is also a tool which is used to calculate potential energy output in watts. Even though no electricity has ever been generated by one of his devices that has been made public they are rating it in watts potential output.
There is no known best mode of operation for the invention device, experiments are still ongoing just to make a reaction, and no device has emerged in physical form. The inventor contemplates his viewed best mode at producing energy.
An Example: The exothermic reaction induced by pulsating heated hydrogen gas within a compression chamber resistively produces heat, and that compression chamber is cooled by pressurized water. The result is low heat and steam pressure which can be used to reduce the energy costs of heating a spa or swimming pool. Whereas the water flowing past the reaction chamber outer surface can be variable to heat the water to the desired temperature. The resulting steam is directed through a conduit and used for cleaning and disinfecting the area where people walk.
Below is a format written for a product to be patented within the United States of America. The full intent of this written patent application on the hypothetical new product reactors to emerge using a reaction to achieve heat simular to Mr. Rossis is for anyone interested that may be designing a product that is intended to be introduced to the public as patent pending. This process is called a Provisional Patent Draft and is the first step to patent your new energy product.
Feel free to use this format, it is for exemplary purposes only.
Claims NA ( not applicable) Provisional Patent Filing.
1.) A device that uses a powder to make heat energy.
2.) That includes a tube 5.275" in length and .41875" inside diameter made of copper 99%- 100% pure.
3.) And that tube is held removably stationary within the hemispherical center of a 4.125" long crossectionally circular tube made of grade A iron commonly available with an inside diameter of 3.1875" and used as the reactor housing.
4.) The assembly of the reactor housing is 8" x 16" x 4" and heats up water.
5.) The water inlet temperature can be a variable and is directly porportional to the outlet desired temperature and visa versa.
To be continued.
View available data regarding cold fusion that assist in the vocabulary used in this video series from a representative of SRI.