|May 26, 2012||Posted by Jack Cole under Brillouin Energy - Robert Godes|
David French has an interesting article and analysis on the USPTO’s recent rejection of Brillouin Energy’s patent. It appears that this is a “final” rejection, but Mr. French notes there are still some options for Mr. Godes and Brillouin. The USPTO has some strict rules for a device being demonstrated or other specific evidence must be provided for anything in the category of “cold fusion.” Mr. French notes:
This is a classic: “Prove it works” examiner’s rejection. The fact that it is labeled “Final” is not as serious as appears. For a further filing fee, examination can be re-opened and better evidence provided. However, this application has already gone through one cycle on this basis and the additional evidence that the examiner warned would have to be filed was not provided, at least that is the assessment of the examiner. A further attempt is nevertheless still possible.
The rejection is based on the premise:
“3. The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, I, 10, 19 and 21-29 based upon 35 USC 101 and 112 as set forth in the last Office action because: Declaration by applicant himself does not provide the requisite counter-evidence of utility and enablement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and substantiation. The Declaration does not provide such evidence as is necessary to render credible low energy nuclear reactions, particularly fusion reactions, given the overwhelming body of experimental data and theoretical arguments against fusion under circumstances well below the coulomb penetration barrier.”
“Simply stating that the concepts the inventor espouses are correct is not sufficient substantiating evidence. Sufficient substantiating evidence may be based on widely accepted scientific concepts (e.g. quantum nuclear physics, credible experiment), a working model, or supporting opinion in a widely respected and peer-reviewed publication (existing credible publications do not support optimistic applicants assumptions).”
Those seeking to comercialize LENR technology are in a catch-22 situation. They know that their patents are likely to be rejected; therefore, they tend to hold back certain essential evidence of the functioning of their devices. Also, the level of skepticism in academic circles hampers the study and publication of experimental results.
Hopefully, Mr. Godes and his attorneys can figure out a way to protect their IP to develop a commercial project and business model that will be workable.