Apr 212016
 

Published on April 21, 2016

We recently published an article proving that Andrea Rossi started his e-cat scam by telling some whoppers of false and misleading statements concerning his e-cat. We are going to skip the hundreds of well documented false and misleading statements that continued after Rossi started his fraudulent e-cat scheme for the moment, and look instead at the most recent claims by Rossi and see if he has been rehabilitated or if Rossi is continuing his well known pattern of making false and misleading statements in relation to his e-cat project. Quick answer, like the spots on the leopard, Rossi will never change, he can’t, as long as all he does is run scam after scam. The information we will uncover in this article may surprise both the skeptics and Rossi’s disciples. For instance check out this gem –

  • Why did Rossi file a “NOT TO PUBLISH” document with his FLUID HEATER patent application certifying that he will never apply for a patent in any other country? This was rescinded on 07-27-2015, but we are not aware of any PCT/WPO or other foreign applications that have been filed based on this patent, and there is no record at the USPTO of any such filing. Therefore, at the time this article was published, US Patent US9,115,913B1 Fluid Heater only gives Rossi patent protection in the USA, and its territories. This is the patent Rossi proudly holds up in front of the flag. This is the patent that Rossi refers to all the time now on his blog, JONP and in interviews. Rossi is telling everyone that every model of his e-cat is covered by this patent, including the e-cat x, whatever that is. Maybe this patent is just a sham like every other patent Rossi obtained and used in his other scams and like them will be abandoned shortly when the fees need renewing.

RossiPatent

  • The child data for Rossi’s Fluid Heater patent says this –
    Child Continuity Data
    14/809,634 filed on 07-27-2015 which is Abandoned claims the benefit of 13/420,109
    14/885,103 filed on 10-16-2015 which is Pending claims the benefit of 13/420,109

Rossi filed for his US Fluid Heater patent with a direct utility nonprovisional application. His priority date was the date of filing for the patent, which was March 14, 2012.

  • What makes this all the more interesting is the fact that Rossi did file a PCT WPO patent application for a Fluid Heater. BUT Rossi did not use the US Fluid Heater as a priority date.
    Rossi filed WO 2016/018851 Al – PCT/US2015/042353 for a Fluid Heater.
    The International Filing Date is: 28 July 2015 (28.07.2015) with a Priority Date of: I August 2014 (01.08.2014). But this priority date is based on a provisional US filing 61/999,582. This filing 61/999,582 is not available on the USPTO website. The document WO 2016/018851 Al says –
    FLUID HEATER
    CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
    This application claims the benefit of the August I, 2014 priority date of U.S. Application No. 61/999,582, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
  • Even though 61/999,582 is NOT available on the USPTO website we were able to obtain a copy. The important part of Provisional Patent Application 61/999,582 is available below.
    It has the very interesting title –
    “Rossi Effect and apparatus to produce heat with high efficiency”Pat-14More fun reading from the same document –Pat-13
  • When Rossi’s US Fluid Heater patent was finally issued it ended up having only 10 claims, whittled down from the original 16.
  1. An apparatus for heating fluid, said apparatus comprising a tank, an electrical resistor, and a fuel wafer, wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated, wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid, wherein said fuel wafer includes a fuel mixture that includes reagents and a catalyst, wherein said electrical resistor is in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst, wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source, wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor, wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride, wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element, wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture, wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.
  2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
  3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.
  4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi-layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said electrical resistor.
  5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert.
  6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein.
  7. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess.
  8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a radiation shield.
  9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said reaction in said fuel mixture is at least partially reversible.
  10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein said reaction comprises reacting lithium hydride with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas.
  • Contrast this with the PCT/WPO claims, in WO 2016/018851 Al, it has 36 claims in it.

Read our most recent article on Rossi’s use of patents and patent applications.
Andrea Rossi’s E-cat Project Began with Intentional False and Misleading Statements

 

The Most Recent Statements by Andrea Rossi about Patents

The thing that caught our eye were these recent comments by Rossi on his blog JONP, that Rossi uses to promote his fraudulent e-cat scheme.

Andrea Rossi
April 7, 2016 at 7:27 PM
[…]“I have to comment the press release of IH, being a press release and not a forensic act.
They made the Lugano reactor ( they also signed it ) they made many replications of which we have due record and witnesses, they made multiple patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ) , with detailed description of the replications , they made replications with the attendance of Woodford,”[…]

Pat-1

Andrea Rossi
April 7, 2016 at 8:32 PM
[…]”Now, let me talk to you of a very singular coincidence: Brillouin has always made only electrolytic apparatuses: go to read all their patent applications made before their agreement with IH, and you will find confirmation of what I am saying ( I know their patents by heart, because I have studied them and probably I know them better than themselves : I wrote about 100 pages of notes about their patents ).”[…]

Pat-3 Pat-2

Andrea Rossi
April 10, 2016 at 8:31 AM
“John:
There is no difference, substantially, because you can retrieve a patent application anytime.
Warm Regards,
A.R.”

Pat-4

Andrea Rossi
April 10, 2016 at 3:54 PM
[…]”I never signed that patent with T. Barker as the coinventor.
It has been made without my knowledge ans without my authorization.”[…]

Pat-5

In addition to these comments by Rossi on JONP, on April 10, 2016 Frank Acland posted the following on ECW.
Later Acland added a link to a PDF that Rossi sent him. When you download R_123621412_3.pdf you will find it is only part of a document called 364-4 Prov.

 

Pat-6

Some Thoughts on Patents and Patent Applications

A few comments about patents and the patent process at the USPTO that most people following the Rossi farce are not familiar with.

  • Provisional patents are never published and are never available at the USPTO for public access unless they become part of a published non-provisional patent or patent application. Sometimes they never become available as we will see later on.
  • Provisional patents are only good for one year and are not renewable.
  • Provisional patent filing dates can be used to establish priority if they are used in conjunction with a non-provisional patent application.
  • Information about non-provisional patent applications is not available to the public until it is published, which is 18 months after the filing date. A USA only non-provisional patent application that will not go to PCT or any other country can be made private and never published. International patent laws require that all patent applications that go to two or more counties must be published. All issued patents are published unless they are under a national secrecy order.
  • If a patent applicant chooses, a non-provisional patent application will not be published – only the patent will be published.  But as stated above, this only applies if the application goes to only one country.
  • A provisional patent application can be filed online with only a digital signature by the applicant or the applicant’s patent attorney.
  • An oath signed by the inventor is NOT required on a provisional patent application, but IS required on non-provisional patent applications.
  • An inventor’s oath cannot be digitally signed. It must be signed in ink and mailed to the USPTO.
  • A non-provisional patent will not be issued until the USPTO receives a signed inventor’s oath. Signed by each inventor named in the patent application.
  • Who is an inventor? According to the USPTO an inventor is “one who contributes to the conception of an invention.” Any person that had any part in the conception of an invention can, and must be named as an inventor on a provisional or non-provisional patent application and patent. Just for one example, if two people over a cup of coffee discussed the details of a new idea for an invention, and a patent application was later filed, both of their names must be on the application. In the same scene above, after their discussion one of them built a working model or performed experiments in a lab, then a patent application is filed, both people would still have the right to put their name on the patent application and patent as a co-inventor. Remember in most cases you do not even need to build a working model of your new idea, or even prove it worked in a lab, in the case of a utility patent as long as you can reduce your idea to drawings and descriptions, that’s all you need. The only time proof of reduction to practice is required is in cases where the patent examiner has serious doubts the invention can work as claimed.Another thing to keep in mind a person is a co-inventor if they contributed to the conception of at least one of the claims. Also each inventor must have contributed to the conception of a least one of the claims. The protection of a patent is in the claims, not in the description of the patent.

For a court case definition we will quote only one case, but there are hundreds more if you want to take the time to look them up.

Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
“Because conception is the touchstone of inventorship, each joint inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.  An idea is sufficiently definite and permanent when only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.”

“[F]or the conception of a joint invention, each of the joint inventors need not make the same type or amount of contribution to the invention.  [O]ne does not qualify as a joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed invention.  One who simply provides the inventor with well-known principles or explains the state of the art without ever having ‘a firm and definite idea’ of the claimed combination as a whole does not qualify as a joint inventor. . . .”

“Furthermore, a co-inventor need not make a contribution to every claim of a patent. A contribution to one claim is enough.” 135 F.3d at 1460 (citations omitted).

  • Fraudulent use: Since a provisional patent application is not a real patent and will expire in one year and since a non-provisional patent application may never result in an issued patent, by law it is false and misleading and is fraud if used to obtain money or other benefit, AND it is ILLEGAL for anyone to claim they have a patent when all they have is a provisional/non-provisional patent application. See the comments below in document 417 filed in the John Rohner case. John Rohner falsely claimed he had a patent, but at the same time Rohner DID have a valid patent application working its way through the patenting process.

Pat-7

  • Semi related: The USPTO, SEC, IRS and FBI know that many fraudsters and scammers use patents and patent applications as part of their fraudulent schemes. A patent or any patent application is NOT proof that a technology or device works as claimed. It is false and misleading and is fraud if used to obtain money or other benefit, AND it is ILLEGAL for anyone to claim they have a technology or device that works as claimed when in fact that is not the case, when they are attempting to get money or benefits from anyone. Read the statements above from document 417 in the Rohner case.

 

A Look at the False and Misleading Story Frank Acland Posted

Acland posted his story about Rossi’s complaint about patents called “Statement From Andrea Rossi on IH Patent Application (Update: Document Provided)” including the doc R_123621412_3.pdf. As we said earlier this PDF was a part of 364-4 Prov. So just what was 364-4 Prov?

364-4 Prov was one of a set of three provisional patent applications filed by the patent attorney Justin Robert Nifong, naming Andrea Rossi as the inventor. This set included the following three provisional applications – And the question becomes were these provisional patents used later in nonprovisional applications? All three of these provisional applications have the same child data.

  • 364-2 Prov was the Attorney Docket Number which became provisional patent application 61/818,553, filed on May 2, 2013.
    Child Continuity Data
    PCT/US14/35588 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Published claims the benefit of 61/818,553
    14/262,740 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Pending claims the benefit of 61/818,553
  • 364-3 Prov was the Attorney Docket Number which became provisional patent application 61/819,058, filed on May 3, 2013.
    Child Continuity Data
    PCT/US14/35588 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Published claims the benefit of 61/819,058
    14/262,740 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Pending claims the benefit of 61/819,058
  • 364-4 Prov was the Attorney Docket Number which became provisional patent application 61/821,914, filed on May 10, 2013.
    Child Continuity Data
    PCT/US14/35588 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Published claims the benefit of 61/821,914
    14/262,740 filed on 04-26-2014 which is Pending claims the benefit of 61/821,914

So what happened to these three provisional patent applications? They all became part of the patent application filed on April 26, 2014  by Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat LLC, US 2014/0326711 A1, called “Devices And Methods For Heat Generation.” And the related PCT/US14/35588 filing became “Devices and methods for heat generation, WO 2014179183 A1”

The patent attorney Justin Robert Nifong signed for all three provisional applications, using a power of attorney, and Rossi signed the inventor’s oath for US 2014/0326711 A1 in May 2014, a little less than one year after the filing of the three provisional patents, just before they expired. The cover page on US 2014/0326711 A1, clearly shows all three provisional numbers.

Here are copies of Rossi’s oath and the cover page for US 2014/0326711 A1.

Pages from 14262740-Rossi SigPages from US20140326711

In conclusion, this is just another false and misleading story by Frank Acland, just like his false and misleading story about National Instruments. Typical conduct from Rossi’s disciples, they have to make things up, or blindly quote anything said by Rossi, to make their “savior” look good in their eyes. Mats Lewan, in his reporting, started out using the same methods and never looked back. If Acland knew what he was doing and had spent any time fact checking before he published his article he would have found all of the above information which is publicly available. And if Acland had even one ounce of ethics he would retract the story which is based on nothing but Rossi’s false and misleading statements.

So the question is, why did Rossi send Acland a copy of the 364-4 Prov.? We find it interesting that on Rossi’s blog he mentions the patent application with the co-inventor but on Acland’s blog story there is no mention of the second co-inventor. On his blog Rossi said –

  • “I never signed that patent with T. Barker as the coinventor.”

So in the next section we will look at that patent application.

A Look at IH’s Patent Application with the Co-Inventor Barker

See quotes above, Rossi said –
“I never signed that patent with T. Barker as the coinventor.”
“[…]they made multiple patent applications ( without my authotization ) with their chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ),[…]

So we search for patents and patent applications.

When we search for Dameron, Thomas Barker we find three patent applications, all relating to the same patent application “Energy-Producing Reaction Devices, Systems and Related Methods.”

When we search for “Industrial Heat LLC” in quotes we find the same three patent applications.

Pat-9

The only patent issued to Andrea Rossi” in the USA since his Thermoelectric Scam is the patent, Fluid Heater United States Patent 9115913. Last but not least we have Rossi’s first cold fusion/LENR patent application US 2011/0005506 A1.

Rossi has claimed in the Rossi v Darden lawsuit filings there are more patent applications on file with the USPTO but those have not been made public at this time so we cannot comment on those.

The only things that matter in trying to determine who is/are the inventor/s of an invention in a particular patent application are the claims. The reason we look at the claims is because to be listed on a patent application as an inventor or co-inventor, he/she must have taken part in the conception of an invention as expressed in the claims themselves.

So let’s look at the claims in the one patent and the three patent applications.

The original claims in the first cold fusion/LENR patent application by Andrea Rossi –

US 2011/0005506 A1 Method And Apparatus For Carrying Out Nickel And Hydrogen Exothermal Reaction

  1. A method for carrying out an hexothermal 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° C. and a pressure much greater than 2 bars.
  1. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature varies in a range from 150 to 500° C.
  1. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said nickel powder is a nickel isotope powder.
  1. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said hydrogen is injected into said tube under a pulsating pressure.
  1. A method according to claims 1 and 2, characterized in that said hydrogen temperature is a variable temperature which varies in said range from 150 to 500° C.
  1. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that said metal tube is a copper metal tube.
  1. A modular apparatus for providing a hexothermal reaction by carrying out the method according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises a metal tube (2) including a nanometric particle nickel powder (3) and a high temperature and pressure hydrogen gas.
  1. A method according to claim 1, characterized in that in said method catalyze materials are used.
  1. An apparatus method according to claim 7, characterized in that said nickel powder filled metal tube (2) is a copper tube, said copper tube further including at least a heating electrical resistance, said tube being encompassed by a jacket (7) including either water and boron or only boron, said jacket (7) being encompassed by a further lead jacket (8) in turn optionally encompassed by a steel layer (9), said jackets (7, 8) being adapted to prevent radiations emitted from said copper tube (2) from exiting said copper tube (2), thereby also transforming said radiations into thermal energy.
  1. An apparatus according to claim 1, characterized in that said apparatus comprises, encompassing said nickel powder, hydrogen and electric resistance (101) containing copper tube (100) a first steel-boron armored construction (102) encompassed by a second lead armored construction (103) for protecting said copper tube (100), a hydrogen bottle connection assembly (106) and a hydrogen bottle (107), said apparatus further comprising, outside of said lead armored construction (103), a cooling water steel outer pipe assembly (105).

The claims in Andrea Rossi’s Fluid Heater patent that was issued –

Fluid heater United States Patent 9115913.

  1. An apparatus for heating fluid, said apparatus comprising a tank, an electrical resistor, and a fuel wafer, wherein said tank is configured for holding fluid to be heated, wherein said fuel wafer is configured to be in thermal communication with said fluid, wherein said fuel wafer includes a fuel mixture that includes reagents and a catalyst, wherein said electrical resistor is in thermal communication with said fuel mixture and said catalyst, wherein said resistor is configured to be coupled to a voltage source, wherein said apparatus further comprises a controller in communication with said voltage source, and a temperature sensor, wherein said fuel mixture comprises lithium, and lithium aluminum hydride, wherein said catalyst comprises a group 10 element, wherein said controller is configured to monitor a temperature from said temperature sensor, and, based at least in part on said temperature, to reinvigorate a reaction in said fuel mixture, wherein reinvigorating said reaction comprises varying a voltage of said voltage source.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises nickel powder.
  1. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein said nickel powder has been treated to enhance porosity thereof.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a multi-layer structure having a layer of said fuel mixture in thermal communication with a layer containing said electrical resistor.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said fuel wafer comprises a central heating insert and a pair of fuel inserts disposed on either side of said heating insert.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a recess for receiving said fuel wafer therein.
  1. The apparatus of claim 6, wherein said tank further comprises a door for sealing said recess.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said tank comprises a radiation shield.
  1. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said reaction in said fuel mixture is at least partially reversible.
  1. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein said reaction comprises reacting lithium hydride with aluminum to yield hydrogen gas.

The original claims in the first cold fusion/LENR patent application where Industrial Heat, Inc. is the applicant and Andrea Rossi is the inventor –

Patent Application US2014/0326711A1, Devices And Methods For Heat Generation

  1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and further wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating element.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel contains no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel is sealed against gas ingress or egress.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising a first ceramic shell between the sealed vessel and the heating element.
  1. The reactor device of claim 4, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the first ceramic shell and the heating element.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel consists of steel.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel comprises a steel tube having two ends sealed by steel caps.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is cylindrical, and wherein the fuel material is uniformly distributed within the interior of the sealed vessel.

[The original published patent application messed up here, so from here on the numbering system is wrong. The numbering is wrong on the issued PDF and on the official page at the USPTO.]

  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the heating element surrounds the sealed vessel.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising a first ceramic shell surrounding the sealed vessel and surrounded by the heating element.
  1. The reactor device of claim 9, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the heating element.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the heating element comprises a resistor coil assembly.
  1. The reactor device of claim 12, wherein the heating element comprises at least three resistor coils that are disposed of parallel to and equidistant from a center axis of the device.
  1. A method comprising: providing a sealed vessel with a fuel material therein, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state; heating the sealed vessel with an input amount of energy without ingress or egress of material into or out of the sealed vessel during heating; and receiving from the sealed vessel an output amount of thermal energy.
  1. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises heating the sealed vessel from outside the sealed vessel.
  1. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises initiating a reaction within the vessel of a fuel material having a specific energy greater than 1×105 watt×hour/kg.
  1. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises alternating a heating element between on and off states.
  1. The method of claim 16, wherein alternating a heating element between on and off states comprises periodically providing electrical current to a resistor coil assembly.
  1. The method of claim 13, wherein providing a sealed vessel comprises providing a sealed vessel that contains a solid fuel material and no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen.
  1. The method of claim 19, wherein the solid fuel material comprises nickel and hydrogen.
  1. The method of claim 13, further comprising: monitoring a temperature of the sealed vessel; and wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises selectively heating the sealed vessel in response to the monitored temperature.
  1. A system for converting thermal input and fuel into a heat output, comprising: a device that includes: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a heating element proximal the vessel and being selectively activatable to provide heat to the sealed vessel, a fuel material within the interior of the vessel that comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial operating state before activation of the heating element; a temperature measuring gauge in communication with the device and configured for monitoring the temperature thereof; and a controller in communication with the heating element and the temperature measuring gauge, the controller configured to activate the heating element in response to measurements from the temperature measuring gauge.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel contains no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel is sealed against gas ingress or egress.
  1. The system of claim 21, further comprising a first ceramic shell between the sealed vessel and the heating element.
  1. The system of claim 23, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the first ceramic shell and the heating element.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel consists of steel.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel comprises a steel tube having two ends sealed by steel caps.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is cylindrical, and wherein the fuel material is uniformly distributed within the interior of the sealed vessel.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the heating element surrounds the sealed vessel.
  1. The system of claim 21, further comprising a first ceramic shell surrounding the sealed vessel and surrounded by the heating element.
  1. The system of claim 30, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the heating element.
  1. The system of claim 21, wherein the heating element comprises a resistor coil assembly.
  1. The system of claim 32, wherein the heating element comprises at least three resistor coils that are disposed of parallel to and equidistant from a center axis of the device

Now we look at the claims in the patent application where Industrial Heat, Inc. is the applicant, (second published patent application as applicant), naming both Andrea Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron, Raleigh, NC as inventors –

Patent application US20160051957A1, Energy-Producing Reaction Devices, Systems and Related Methods

  1. A reactor device comprising: a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; and a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the refractory layer comprises at least one recess configured to receive the one or more thermal units therein.
  1. The reactor device of claim 2, wherein the one or more thermal units comprise one or more resistive wires.
  1. The reactor device of claim 3, wherein the at least one recess comprises a spiral groove and the one or more resistive wires are helically-disposed in the groove.
  1. The reactor device of claim 4, wherein the one or more resistive wires comprises at least three wires for carrying an alternating-current or a direct-current electric power.
  1. The reactor device of claim 5, wherein the refractory layer comprises a ribbed or finned surface that increases heat dissipation away from the reaction chamber.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising sealing members that seal the reaction chamber.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber is open such that it does not maintain a pressurized seal.
  1. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber comprises a longitudinally extending cylinder.
  1. A reactor system comprising: a reactor device comprising: a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units. a controller configured to control a thermal output of the one or more thermal units.
  1. The reactor system of claim 10, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature in at least a portion of the reaction chamber.
  1. The reactor system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to control the thermal output of the one or more thermal units responsive to a temperature sensed by the temperature sensor.
  1. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the refractory layer comprises at least one recess configured to receive the one or more thermal units therein.
  1. The reactor system of claim 13, wherein the one or more thermal units comprise one or more resistive wires.
  1. The reactor system of claim 14, wherein the at least one recess comprises a spiral groove and the one or more resistive wires are helically-disposed in the groove.
  1. The reactor system of claim 15, wherein the one or more resistive wires comprises at least three wires carrying a three-phase alternating-current electric power.
  1. The reactor system of claim 16, wherein the refractory layer comprises a ribbed or finned surface that increases heat dissipation away from the reaction chamber.
  1. The reactor system of claim 10, further comprising sealing members that seal the reaction chamber.
  1. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the reaction chamber is open such that it does not maintain a pressurized seal.
  1. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the reaction chamber comprises a longitudinally extending space wherein the space has a closed geometric cross-section in at least one portion of the reaction chamber.

Here are the claims in a table side by side.

US2014/0326711A1, Rossi Inventor US2016/0051957A1  Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron Inventors
1. A reactor device comprising: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a fuel material within the interior of the vessel; and a heating element proximal the vessel, wherein the fuel material comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and further wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state before activation of the heating element. 1. A reactor device comprising: a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; and a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units.
2. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel contains no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen. 2. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the refractory layer comprises at least one recess configured to receive the one or more thermal units therein.
3. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel is sealed against gas ingress or egress. 3. The reactor device of claim 2, wherein the one or more thermal units comprise one or more resistive wires.
4. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising a first ceramic shell between the sealed vessel and the heating element. 4. The reactor device of claim 3, wherein the at least one recess comprises a spiral groove and the one or more resistive wires are helically-disposed in the groove.
5. The reactor device of claim 4, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the first ceramic shell and the heating element. 5. The reactor device of claim 4, wherein the one or more resistive wires comprises at least three wires for carrying an alternating-current or a direct-current electric power.
6. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel consists of steel. 6. The reactor device of claim 5, wherein the refractory layer comprises a ribbed or finned surface that increases heat dissipation away from the reaction chamber.
7. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the sealed vessel comprises a steel tube having two ends sealed by steel caps. 7. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising sealing members that seal the reaction chamber.
8. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is cylindrical, and wherein the fuel material is uniformly distributed within the interior of the sealed vessel. 8. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber is open such that it does not maintain a pressurized seal.
8. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the heating element surrounds the sealed vessel. 9. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the reaction chamber comprises a longitudinally extending cylinder.
9. The reactor device of claim 1, further comprising a first ceramic shell surrounding the sealed vessel and surrounded by the heating element. 10. A reactor system comprising: a reactor device comprising: a reaction chamber; one or more thermal units in thermal communication with the reaction chamber configured to transfer thermal energy to the reaction chamber; a refractory layer between the reaction chamber and the one or more thermal units. a controller configured to control a thermal output of the one or more thermal units.
10. The reactor device of claim 9, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the heating element. 11. The reactor system of claim 10, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature in at least a portion of the reaction chamber.
11. The reactor device of claim 1, wherein the heating element comprises a resistor coil assembly. 12. The reactor system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to control the thermal output of the one or more thermal units responsive to a temperature sensed by the temperature sensor.
12. The reactor device of claim 12, wherein the heating element comprises at least three resistor coils that are disposed of parallel to and equidistant from a center axis of the device. 13. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the refractory layer comprises at least one recess configured to receive the one or more thermal units therein.
13. A method comprising: providing a sealed vessel with a fuel material therein, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial state; heating the sealed vessel with an input amount of energy without ingress or egress of material into or out of the sealed vessel during heating; and receiving from the sealed vessel an output amount of thermal energy. 14. The reactor system of claim 13, wherein the one or more thermal units comprise one or more resistive wires.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises heating the sealed vessel from outside the sealed vessel. 15. The reactor system of claim 14, wherein the at least one recess comprises a spiral groove and the one or more resistive wires are helically-disposed in the groove.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises initiating a reaction within the vessel of a fuel material having a specific energy greater than 1×105 watt×hour/kg. 16. The reactor system of claim 15, wherein the one or more resistive wires comprises at least three wires carrying a three-phase alternating-current electric power.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises alternating a heating element between on and off states. 17. The reactor system of claim 16, wherein the refractory layer comprises a ribbed or finned surface that increases heat dissipation away from the reaction chamber.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein alternating a heating element between on and off states comprises periodically providing electrical current to a resistor coil assembly. 18. The reactor system of claim 10, further comprising sealing members that seal the reaction chamber.
18. The method of claim 13, wherein providing a sealed vessel comprises providing a sealed vessel that contains a solid fuel material and no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen. 19. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the reaction chamber is open such that it does not maintain a pressurized seal.
19. The method of claim 19, wherein the solid fuel material comprises nickel and hydrogen. 20. The reactor system of claim 10, wherein the reaction chamber comprises a longitudinally extending space wherein the space has a closed geometric cross-section in at least one portion of the reaction chamber.
20. The method of claim 13, further comprising: monitoring a temperature of the sealed vessel; and wherein heating the sealed vessel comprises selectively heating the sealed vessel in response to the monitored temperature.
21. A system for converting thermal input and fuel into a heat output, comprising: a device that includes: a sealed vessel defining an interior; a heating element proximal the vessel and being selectively activatable to provide heat to the sealed vessel, a fuel material within the interior of the vessel that comprises a solid including nickel and hydrogen, and wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is not preloaded with a pressurized gas when in an initial operating state before activation of the heating element; a temperature measuring gauge in communication with the device and configured for monitoring the temperature thereof; and a controller in communication with the heating element and the temperature measuring gauge, the controller configured to activate the heating element in response to measurements from the temperature measuring gauge.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel contains no more than a trace amount of gaseous hydrogen.
23. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel is sealed against gas ingress or egress.
24. The system of claim 21, further comprising a first ceramic shell between the sealed vessel and the heating element.
25. The system of claim 23, further comprising a second ceramic shell surrounding the first ceramic shell and the heating element.
26. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel consists of steel.
27. The system of claim 21, wherein the sealed vessel comprises a steel tube having two ends sealed by steel caps.
28. The system of claim 21, wherein the interior of the sealed vessel is cylindrical, and wherein the fuel material is uniformly distributed within the interior of the sealed vessel.

 

Right off we see that the claims in the patent application where Industrial Heat, Inc. is the applicant, and both Andrea Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron, Raleigh, NC are listed as inventors – Patent application US20160051957A1, Energy-Producing Reaction Devices, Systems and Related Methods filed on Feb. 20, 2015, are completely different from any other patent application related to Andrea Rossi.

Rossi makes five claims in relation to this patent application, and/or others –

  1. “I never signed that patent with T. Barker as the coinventor.”
  2. “[…]It has been made without my knowledge[…]”
  3. “[…]It has been made…without my authorization.”[…]
  4. “[…]they made multiple patent applications ( without my authotization )[…]”
  5. “[…]with their chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ),[…]”

Let’s look at each of Rossi’s claims individually.

  1. “I never signed that patent with T. Barker as the coinventor.”

First, there seems to be a discrepancy between Rossi’s claims #1-3, where he talks about only one patent (singular), and #4-5 where he talks about multiple patent applications that were filed without Rossi’s authorization.

Second, it seems to be true that neither of the named inventors signed an oath yet for this patent application. This would have to be done before this application would be patented. On 07-14-2015 a notice was sent telling them that they had to sign the oath.

Pat-10

  1. “[…]It has been made without my knowledge[…]”
  2. “[…]It has been made…without my authorization.”[…]

We will answer both of these together. This answer is only in relation to the patent application US20160051957A1, naming both Rossi and Thomas Barker Dameron as the inventors.

  • Even if Rossi and Dameron were both inventors on this application their approval or authorization for the filing of the patent application is not required, because the applicant is Industrial Heat, LLC.
  • It is possible for either or neither of the inventors to NOT know about the application until such time that their signature is required on the inventor’s oath which must be signed and filed before a patent is granted.
  • If there are two or more inventors for a patent application and one or both refuse to sign the oath, federal patent law states what the applicant can and cannot do to get the application patented.
  • All that is required for both of the named inventors to be on this application legally is for both of them to have taken part in the conception of this invention as expressed in one or more of the claims.
  • Most of the time when a patent application has more than one inventor, and both of the inventors were not involved in all of the claims, the oath is not signed until after the review process because claims are almost always removed, revised, or restated during the review process. And remember an inventor has to be connected to one or more claims.
  • So to answer Rossi his knowledge and authorization is not required for the filing of any patent application IF Industrial Heat LLC had the right to file the patent application.
  • So the question becomes, did Industrial Heat LLC have the right to file for the patent application as the applicant? It all depends on the relationship of Industrial Heat LLC and the two listed inventors when the invention was conceptualized and the application was filed.
    On 2-20-2015 Laura M. Kelley, an attorney with the law firm Myers Bigel, signed the Application Data Sheet listing Industrial Heat LLC as the applicant by virtue of assignment. Myers Bigel is the law firm handling this patent application.

Pat-11

It says –

“or the name and address of the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter who is the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46.” So let’s look at 37 CFR 1.46
We will leave it up to the reader to decide if Industrial Heat LLC might have had the right to file under 37 CFR 1.46. There is not enough public information for us to make that determination. It is possible though, they did have the right to file.

Pat-12

  • But as they say there is more to the story. This patent application US2016/0051957A1, was filed on Feb. 20, 2015 and is based on two provisional patent applications; Provisional application No. 61/943,016, filed on Feb. 21, 2014, and provisional application No. 62/060,215, filed on Oct. 6, 2014.
    What is interesting is that Provisional application No. 61/943,016, is not available on the USPTO website but provisional application No. 62/060,215 is available, so let’s look at that one.

    • The only inventor listed is Andrea Rossi.
    • Child Continuity Data shows three things pending based on this provisional application: PCT/US15/16897 filed on 02-20-2015 which is Published, goes to WO2015127263.
      14/627,905 filed on 02-20-2015 which is Pending – NOT available at USPTO.
      14/627,828 filed on 02-20-201 which is Pending, is US2016/0051957A1.
    • The patent attorney Justin Nifong, was the same one who did the three provisional applications in the first part of this article about the Acland story at the beginning of this article.
    • The provisional application Justin Nifong, filed was 438-4-PROV.
    • In the 438-4-PROV. Application Data Sheet, Justin Nifong said IPH International BV, Raleigh, NC is the Applicant, based on the fact it is the assignee. See the information directly above about an assignee.
    • So to believe Rossi you must believe Justin Nifong, a licensed practicing patent attorney submitted false documents to the USPTO.
    • The last comment to prove Rossi knew about the provisional application 438-4-PROV. Rossi assigned his rights to Leonardo Corp. on 03/08/2016. Also Rossi assigned his rights in US2016/0051957A1 to Leonardo Corp. on 03/08/2016. If either of the patent applications were bogus as Rossi claims, why assign his rights?
    • What is not clear is why IPH International BV, Raleigh, NC was the applicant in the provisional application, but the nonprovisional patent application shows Industrial Heat LLC as the assignee. All of this raises some questions.
    • Was there an assignment of rights between IPH International BV and Industrial Heat LLC?
    • How did IPH International BV, Raleigh, NC get the rights in the first place to be able to file the provisional as the applicant?
    • Was/is IPH International BV, Raleigh, NC a subsidiary and/or a research arm of Industrial Heat LLC?
    • Was/is Andrea Rossi and/or Thomas Barker Dameron ever an employee of either IPH International BV, Raleigh, NC amd/or Industrial Heat LLC?
    • Why did Rossi file a NOT TO PUBLISH document with his FLUID HEATER patent application certifying that he will never apply for a patent in any other country? This resulted in Patent US9,115,913B1, which only gives Rossi patent protection in the USA.
  • To the best of our knowledge Rossi has assigned his rights, as the inventor, in all patents and patent to Leonardo Corporation. Which is true for this patent application also.
  1. “[…]they made multiple patent applications ( without my authotization )[…]”

We have no way of knowing if this is true or not. We know of no others. In addition, even if allowed to go public, patent applications are not published till 18 months after filing. And patent applications can be held private unless a patent is issued. But please see our answer to items 2 and 3 above about the one application that was published.

  1. “[…]with their chief engineer as the co-inventor ( he invented nothing ),[…]”

It is not public knowledge if Industrial Heat LLC has a chief engineer, or any employees for that matter, or if they do, if any patent applications have been filed listing him/her as the inventor. It is also not clear the role Thomas Barker Dameron plays in all of this.

*******

One last comment for this article. It makes no difference whatsoever the education, the employment, the amount of knowledge, the qualifications, the age, etc. of a person listed as the inventor on a patent application. The ONLY thing that matters is that the inventor or co-inventor must have taken part in the conception of an invention as expressed in the claims themselves.

 

Published on April 21, 2016

*******