As I understand it, if patents don’t explain the technical and theoretical information necessary to reproduce the patented item they would be invalid- unless someone can vouch “I built one and it works”.
And for that matter, is the name on the patents a real person or a cover for an anonymous research team?
IOW, wtf is going on here?
Is there a more reputable cite for this than the Daily Mail?
A search on the image from that article leads to this patent on google:
So apparently it is a real patent (US10144532B2).
The purpose of the patent may be so that the U.S. Navy can investigate the claims or functionality of the device without paying royalties to anyone else who tries to patent something similar.
I wonder if the Patent Office asked the Navy for an embodiment of the invention? Similar to what the procedures are for anyone trying to patent a e.g., perpetual motion machine?
You’re talking about a government that spent millions on “IED Detectors” that were basically devining rods sticking out of a box.
There is a more detailed account here.
This is where the Daily Mail got the story from.
There are a number of patents that are filed “just in case”. Suppose there’s a later breakthrough that makes something feasible. Being the owner of the initial idea patent gives you leverage in making a deal with the other person. (The other person’s patent is worthless if the Navy refuses to make a deal with customers since the customers need both patents to do anything. This forces a deal on the patents.)
I believe a PMM is the only thing the USPTO requires to have a working model of in order to be issued a patent.
Thanks for the heads-up. I invented one of those last year, but my working model is not quite finished yet. I guess I’ll have to wait to patent it.
How are you going to stop it so you can crate it up and send it to the USPTO for evaluation? I don’t think you’re allowed to ship machinery that is in operation.
Consider also that some “woo” patents may be obfuscating patents that are covered as classified information.
The article cited in the OP mentions a previous patent for a room temperature superconductor by the same inventor.
I can’t attest to the theoretical soundness of this patent, but the superconductor patent is pure bunk.
The claims and description don’t describe any mechanism that relates to anything we know about the underlying physics of superconductivity (not just the mechanisms by which materials transition to the superconductive state, but the physics of the superconducting state and the properties of that state such as Meissner effect, Josephson tunneling, superfluid characteristics, etc. can’t be related to, let alone sensibly derived from, the mechanism described in the patent).
As I mentioned to a colleague when we were sent a copy of the patent: “It doesn’t work that way, none of it works that way!”
As to the patent under discussion, read the claims in the patent itself. It is not a set of claims that have enough specificity to challenge the “reduction to practice” by one “skilled in the art”. The examiner allowed a bare bones description of an apparatus (no method claims) that can’t be disproven to work (no one can generate the fields and energies required, so no one can disprove it).
I question the thinking behind the Navy patenting this (I could see an individual patenting, crazier patents exist). Defensive patenting (no one can patent it and prevent us from pursuing it) makes no sense at all. The federal government doesn’t worry about infringement- they own the Patent Office and have what are called “march-in rights” on all patents, regardless of the patent holder. It doesn’t prevent any foreign entity from pursuing it (it is only valid in the US), it just lets them know what the Navy is thinking about.
I think its a “brag” patent by the Navy (look how advanced and smart our scientists are!) on a subject that the applied guys have assessed has no future, so why not? (or the inventor has pictures of one or more admirals that they don’t want made public).
As a strategy, I could see using this patent, issued to the US government, to bar similar patents for other, less ethical applicants.
One of the problems with issuing patents on woo is that the owners of the patent can then turn around and use the patent as “proof the government thinks this works!” to scam investors and consumers. But it can be very difficult under the patent law and jurisprudence to refuse such patents. “It violates the laws of physics!” often isn’t actually enough to justifying turning it down, if you can believe that. But, “Sorry, the Navy already has a patent on UFOs, that counts as prior art!” is actually the strongest reason to refuse the patent.
I think the simplest explanation is just that “the US Navy” isn’t doing anything. Individuals are. And those individuals are only human. So you’ve got some human researcher in the Navy who happens to be a crazy crackpot, and some human officer who happens to have been bamboozled by him.
This what is known as the EmDrive, first reported by NASA in 1916. Independent test have been completed. It does produce thrust. However, it produces thrust even when there is no power applied! Here is the article:
Wow, so it can be used as a time machine, too?
Oops. I was trying to figure out what you meant… sigh.
Dennis
Also, NatGeo seems to have misplaced the article you were trying to link to mixdenny
Well, it’s not PM but the USN has recently filed a patent for a compact fusion reactor.
William Proxmire is rolling over in his grave.
And now the Army has signed a research contract to study UFO technology: