With permission we have copied the latest blog post of Gary Wright.
Gary Wright has just published an article giving a current and up-to-date peek into how and why the USPTO is rejecting cold fusion/LENR patents.
The story is based on a complete analysis of the Santilli LENR patent, including the latest papers sent to the USPTO by Santilli on October 18, 2012 and the Oral Interview in October also. Here are some of the patent examiner’s comments in the section “The Final Rejection.”
- “More importantly, said Declaration fails to provide direct and convincing evidence that a preponderance of evidence against utility as transpired from the examination of the state of the art as set forth in the prior Office Action does not exist: websites to what basically are applicant’s own work are less than convincing because the examiner should already reasonably have concluded that applicant stands by his own work: It has long been known what applicant believes he has achieved. Furthermore, the problem is not that no proponents can be found, but that there is a preponderance of evidence against credibility of the asserted utility. Since applicant is convinced, why not submit his work in the form of a working device to be tested by a scientifically reputed and fully neutral institution, such as either the National Institute of Science and Technology ( NIST) or the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)? A positive outcome of such test would certainly convince any examiner to withdraw the rejections for lack of utility and for lack of enablement.”
- “Finally, applicant is kindly invited to provide evidence of the scientific standing of the journal ” New Advances in Physics”; neither the examiner nor search support staff has been able to find said journal indexed in any commercial database.”
- “According to examiner’s information, furthermore, and applicant may correct examiner if incorrect: Manager and CEO of aforementioned publishing company is his spouse, Ms. Carla Santilli, casting some doubt on the neutrality of the publishing company.”
Mr. Rossi take note, the patent office does not like information from self published blogs and phony “scientific journals.”
You can read the complete article here in the section “Technology Patents and IP.”
Some good reading there.