General Counsel
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Mr. Greg Morse
Office of the Commissioner for Patents
FOURTH NOTIFICATION OF A PERSISTENT MASSIVE IP VIOLATION, BREACH OF ETHICS, AND UPDATING OF INVENTION CONCEPTIONS
Sometimes public employees have difficulties to fully accomplish their duties bringing embarrassment and negative consequences to citizens not aware of their mistakes.
As a Pennsylvania State University sponsored PhD student I was supposed to have no concerns about my fees as my research institution employer never had problem to honor them.
In the second semester I got surprised when I had all my courses dropped for not paying a debt of ‘ZERO’ dollar. I got astonished afterwards when I received a fine for late payment of my fees of ‘ZERO’ dollar debt and later enrollment.
It took me more than two hours to convince a Pennsylvanian State University employee that I would never collect a penalty of $50 for late payment of ‘ZERO’ dollar of my fees. She was obeying the Law prosecuting a student that had a misdeed of not paying his debt of ‘ZERO’ dollar. Incredibly Bursar cancelled all my courses because I had a debt of ‘ZERO’ dollar. Since such employee was doing his duty I had to talk to each faculty of dropped disciplines to allow me to have my enrollment back again. People following the Law not only dropped my courses but also charged me with late enrollment as they dropped my courses.
Frankly, it does not require a high intelligence to understand that a debt of ‘ZERO’ dollar is a non sense and a clear mistake. A rational employee could have prevented me lots of embarrassment in the very early beginning. In some extent it was disrespected as a regular student that pays his bills and is an exemplar citizen with honored academic recognition.
I did not take the institution to court as I solved the problem in two hours incisively arguing about common fairness. I was not told which Law was used to fix such mistake.
How long will it take to convince USPTO that my PhD textbooks regarding HYDROLOGY have advanced knowledge that cannot be ignored on patenting affairs?
Around ten years ago I bumped to a sort of ‘scientific discovery’ in hydrodynamics. My first US patent 6,766,817 July 2004 rich in terminology from Soil Physics and Hydrogeology was issued easily relieving any potential conflicting matter.
I got surprised soon afterwards of my first patent approval noticing its advanced hydrology with common knowledge more than a century standing on my PhD textbooks being ignored in favor of a broad laypeople shallow terminology not even employed in Hydrology.
Then my partner and Patent Attorney Mr. Kermit Lopez suggested me to send IDS requests to those involved in the patents that I thought were having conflicting matter. Easily with some hits on my computer keyboard I spread hundreds of IDS requests. Wealth and rich Law firms complained of losing millions of dollars for having to make their Patent Attorneys to read and understand the advanced hydrology of my patents. Some of them were even trying to bring me to court for spamming. They were arguing that I was breaking the Law for asking them to comply with the Law. That is awkward.
They pressured my partners that are a small Law firm to make me stop. So, my partners abandoned my project pursuing a ‘scientific discovery’ afraid of financial consequences since USPTO was not protecting my issued patents.
Why USPTO has not been protecting my issued patents?
BREACH OF ETHICS
USPTO is not only scientifically violating my patents but also running toward ethical issues:
Surgeons do surgery, Chemists work with Chemistry, Physicists handle Physics, Engineers assess Engineering, and so on. Why USPTO is assigning Patent Examiners to approve hydrological issues by non Hydrologists?
Mechanical Engineers are not Hydrologists even though they have some basics in Mechanic of Fluids but their expertise in Hydrology is far away from many disciplines commonly taught at Geosciences and Soil Sciences.
How important is to understanding a deep Hydrology?
After a thorough analysis at the patenting system taking advantage of present instant internet access I could figure out a clear pattern that Hydrology is being neglected by a long persistent bias from breaching of ethics:
1. Conductivity features the propriety of conduction allowing an element being tracked in time and space. Many professionals understand and employ Heat/Thermal Conductivity for heat assessment important to many devices. Today USPTO has 63,481 issued patents discussing about it.
2. Hydrology employs the same conception to track down fluids moving through porosity. But, only 427 issued patents discuss about Hydraulic Conductivity.
3. Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity is when the fluid is moving through porosity by negative pressure, or suction, the same phenomenon that takes place on wicks of oil lamps, and lay people call it wicking. Hydrology avoids wick terminology because of the Thermodynamics compliance not important to Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. To my surprise only 18 issued patents discuss about Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity and 3 of them are mine.
4. Patenting Bias by Breaching of Ethics: Hydrologists have not been involved much in patenting affairs even it is common knowledge on text books that Henry Darcy, a French Engineer, early in 1856 proposed a Law describing Saturated Flow and in 1907 Edgard Buckingham proposed an equation to portray fluids moving through unsaturated porosity. Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow is around a century in the scientific literature but my 3 patents were the first to mention it into the patenting affairs.
5. Laypeople Terminology: Unsaturated hydraulic flow has been handled by laypeople non Hydrologists since USPTO issued 22,498 patents that discuss about wick/wicking and none of them discuss important technical issues like conductivity, hydraulic zones, anisotropy, void geometry, self-sustaining properties, molecular connectivity, etc. It is clear that inventors, Patent Attorneys, and Patent Examiners are non Hydrologists to push toward advanced hydrology common on text books.
USPTO bias is curbing Hydrology by violating academic structure of sciences: USPTO has more than 4500 Patent Examiners but I believe that none of them has background in Soil Science or Hydrogeology to understand a deep hydrology of fluids moving on porosity that is standing on scientific literature more than a century.
USPTO assigned Fluidic Handling 3750 under Mechanical Engineering 3700 according to the Patent Technology Management Center.
I studied agricultural sciences during 14 years and I never had Mechanical Engineers neither as Professors nor as peer students.
Until now only 18 issued patents address Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity which is the measurement of fluids on porosity as taught in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. All Patent Examiners approving such patents are possibly Mechanical Engineers according to their profile of patenting approval:
Hezron Williams approved 6 patents from a total of 7,024 at USPTO
Gerald Michalsky approved 2 patents from a total of 3,245 at USPTO (6,766.817 6,918,404)
Frank Tsay approved 2 patents from a total of 1,255 at USPTO
Stewart Levy approved 2 patents from a total of 2,068 at USPTO
Helen Kwok approved 1 patent from a total of 757 at USPTO
Eileen Lillis approved 1 patent from a total of 1,272 at USPTO
John Chapman approved 1 patent from a total of 1,254 at USPTO
George Suchfield approved 1 patent from a total of 2,526 at USPTO
Ivars Cintins approved 1 patent from a total of 1,855 at USPTO
Anh Vo approved 1 patent from a total of 786 at USPTO (7,066,586)
My issued patent 6,766.817 affect wick/wicking that fails on oil lamps as well as capillarity that is not inside tube structures of capillaries for failing to address Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow on random porosity. Combining wick/wicking plus capillary/capillarity the total of patents addressing fluids moving on porous systems reach 96,601 issued patents.
When I asked USPTO to cancel around 22,000 patents on wick/wicking it was because such patents are already technically obsolete and nearly useless for ignoring common knowledge more a century standing on scientific literature.
As analogy, this situation portrays USPTO granting kites IP when airplanes are already flying high in the sky. I think that this is unacceptable.
CONCEPTIONS OF INVENTION – Power vs. Knowledge
Please, read the attached article ‘Study predicts 75 percent of overweight in US by 2015’
Why are Americans betraying Nature functioning and hurting itself?
In some extent it is taking place because Lawyers use their power to ignore Science suppressing common knowledge.
Please, read the attached article ‘When questions of science come to a courtroom, truth has many faces’.
Justice Scalia said ‘I told you before I am not a scientist’. No Courtroom has scientific expertise to decide about the functioning of science. This violation of science cannot be solved in courtrooms. Textbooks offer common knowledge to be read, accepted, and complied with.
I do not feel comfortable having my PhD textbooks being violated by Patent Examiners missing common knowledge in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. There is a sort of competition between knowledge and power hurting human affairs.
As a Ph. D. trained in science I would like to register some statements for USPTO to update its institutional mission:
Modern life is not improving human existence as obesity is growing and spreading around the world.
Inventing a new device has a positive and a negative side. The negative side can increase enormously when it violates some important balance towards the fundaments of nature functioning.
It is easier to invent new devices replacing man work than to convince man to continue working their muscles in order to keep a needed physiological health.
New inventions let excessive food chasing man which is becoming weak and flaccid to run away and understand new elusive factors in the environment.
Humans are biological machines designed by nature during millions of years of evolution having continuous body exercise and a specific diet inherited from those conditions. Man came from a harsh environment with scarce food imprinting a need for continuous body exercise and a wild appetite. Inventors need to be aware of such damage to human existence they are promoting in order to achieve economic profit pushing human existence off a balance with their creation. For example, human digestive physiology is not adapted to fast food as consequence of thermal, mechanical, and chemical effect to human food bringing changes hard to cope resulting to diabetes and many other side-effects.
How much credit can be given to new ideas that results in such side effect to human lifestyles?
Humans as part of the life system were born to solve problems. The problems we are facing now will be solved some centuries down the line as new ones will emerge. It means that not everybody will become obese, but the growing problem may unleash broad consequences to those ones relying blindly on institutions like USPTO that fails its clear duty.
Nature is in charge of human existence since the beginning of life millions of years ago. More and more we are learning that man motivated by economic reasons are likely to interfere to many processes resulting many levels of clear negative side-effects. Flawed conceptions distort human values. For example, milk is a product good for the economy but not for human health, unless as a baby taking it from our mothers. Around 40% of human adults cannot digest milk since the production of lactase, an enzyme that digest milk lactose, is discontinued as we grow. On the other hand fruits that are so good to humans because, if we originated from apes, we were eating it during our evolution. Fruits are not that friendly to the economy and mass manipulation by large companies and media marketing.
I am curious how much obese will Americans become till the obesity rate start coming down again since intelligent people learn about their endeavors solving the problems they face daily.
Advanced technological development can become an illusion if humans do not use their claimed intelligence to achieve precisely a high level of balance with their nature functioning.
As an outstanding scientist I am aware that my claims will be considered and solved since common knowledge standing on my PhD textbooks cannot be neglected. I just do not want to wait 20 to 40 years for it to take place since I am accumulating personal and professional damage just because USPTO employees are not doing their duty.
Nowadays there is an abrupt change on the way we can do science and communicate. It is faster to read published patents weekly by USPTO than standing up and opening books on shelves behind my computer in Brazil.
Consequently, it is time for USPTO to curb bureaucracy and start solving the problems to accomplish its institutional duty.
My suggestion to the USPTO is the following:
1. Stop issuing new patents that involve fluid moving on porosity by Patent Examiners that are not Hydrologists;
2. Hire some Patent Examiners with background in Hydrogeology/Soil Physics;
3. Assign Hydrologist as Primary Examiners or Assistant Examiner to all new patents involving fluids moving on porosity (capillary, capillarity, porous, porosity, wick, wicking);
4. I need a financial compensation till the problem of USPTO negligence with my patents is fixed. My project pursuing a ‘scientific discovery’ is being deeply harmed in the last three years by this massive scientific patent infringement and ethic breach shying away potential licensees, scaring my Patent Attorneys and frustrating my family on their income need. I need a support to bring my project to where it was supposed to be if USPTO had done its duty.
5. Bring my claims and statements to public and make an official declaration on the scope of my concerns. Potential licensees do not believe that USPTO is going to honor my PhD textbooks. I have no doubt that the outcome of my ‘scientific discovery’ project would have had better results if USPTO were doing its job as I expected it from the early beginning.
I have no resentment with USPTO since public institutions are prone to fail once in a while. I read that around 200 inmates spent decades behind bars when finally they were declared innocent, received an apology, and a financial compensation as being punished for crimes they did not commit. Perfection in nature allows some room for occasional imperfection and responsibility to repair mistakes.
My ‘scientific discovery’ project is entitled to receive a similar treatment if my claims hold because I am assuming that USPTO cannot afford ignoring common knowledge on textbooks. Taking longer to handle this issue can result in more consequences since knowledge should always be honored.
Kind regards,
Campinas, Brazil, August 2, 2007
Elson Silva, Ph. D.
Tubarc Technologies, LLC
Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838 Parque São Quirino
CEP 13088-300 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
Email: el_silva@uol.com.br
http://tubarc.blogspot.com/
Friday, August 10, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Third Report of Violation of Science
General Counsel
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
THIRD NOTIFICATION OF CONTINUOUS MASSIVE IP VIOLATION AND DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION
It seems that USPTO is accountable for mishandling patenting issues violating science, ignoring common knowledge on text books, and driving my project to failure. I am accumulating many losses because advanced knowledge from my Ph. D. text books are being disregarded in favor of a language of laypeople not even in Hydrology. USPTO negligent work is resulting in damage to my personal and professional life as the institution fails on its mission discouraging inventors to pursue deep knowledge expanding the frontiers of science and technological innovations.
Frankly, any high school student understands that fluid movement deals with Hydrology and my Hydrology textbooks have nothing about wick or wicking. In the field of art of Hydrology there is nothing that deals with wick or wicking simply because this word from laypeople has compliances to thermodynamics associated to the functioning of oil lamps.
USPTO cannot allow a wick that fail as a wick, or any wicking that is different from the hydrology of oil lamps because it violates their implied etymology.
USPTO cannot allow the expression ‘capillary pumping’ simply because it hurts common knowledge in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology since there is no pumping and fluid moves in response to a gradient of unsaturated hydraulic flow potential.
I have this impression that Mr. Housel Attorney-Advisor does not understand much about patenting affairs. He said ‘While it is true that certain benefits may accrue from a strict rule for consistent use of the terminology, the U. S. patent system follow a more flexible, general principle that allows for a more fluid description of inventions. As such, the Office will generally only object to terminology in an application for patent if it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a misunderstanding of the invention described and claimed’.
He missed the most important point in the patenting process – comparison. After understanding the invention it is necessary to contrast the patent application with the present knowledge standing in the scientific literature and the issued patents holding in the database. How does Patent Examiners contrast laypeople language with terminology of advanced technology on issued patents? What is Hydrology Science saying about wicks? Is this claimed wick a real wick? Can it perform as a wick on oil lamps? Is not it unsaturated hydraulic flow as states since 1907 by Edgard Buckingham commonly mentioned on Soil Physics literature for fluids moving on porous systems and deeply portrayed at US pat. 6,766,817 as the first patent to gauge flow moving on artificial porosity media? Why to accept laypeople terminology when deep science is in the scientific literature starting in 1856 and now conveying to patenting under US 6,766,817?
Why is the Office accepting laypeople terminology and neglecting advanced science with common knowledge holding in the text books near a century?
I am not opposing to any laypeople terminology, but the precise scope of the words that is allowed under such etymology. Wicks can be accepted since the device can work as a wick standing high temperature of flames, and wicking within the scope of oil lamp hydrology, upward unsaturated flow toward a flame.
USPTO is disrespecting scientific common knowledge of fluid moving on porosity with the following long standing historic profile:
1. 1856 – Saturated Hydraulic Flow; Henry Darcy in France introduced the first conceptions of fluid moving on porosity when he was studying water flow dynamics on sandy filters. He proposed his famous Darcy's Law equation for Saturated Hydraulic Flow: ' the velocity of flow is proportional to the hydraulic gradient'.
2. 1907 – Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow: Near a century ago in order to describe water flow through unsaturated soil which is above the water table Egard Buckingham proposed a modification of Darcy's Law in 1907 trying to describe mathematically fluid flowing on porosity
3. 2004 – Unsaturated/Saturated Hydraulic Flow: US Pat. 6,766,817 p.1 line 65 : 'A fluid that possesses a positive pressure can be generally defined in the field of hydrology as saturated fluid. Likewise, a fluid that has a negative pressure (i.e., or suction) can be generally defined as an unsaturated fluid. Fluid matric potential can be negative or positive. For example, water standing freely at an open lake, can be said to stand under a gravity pull. The top surface of the liquid of such water accounts for zero pressure known as the water table or hydraulic head. Below the water table, the water matric potential (pressure) is generally positive because the weight of the water increases according to parameters of force per unit of area. When water rises through a capillary tube or any other porosity, the water matric potential (e.g., conventionally negative pressure or suction) is negative because the solid phase attracts the water upward relieving part of its gravitational pull to the bearing weight. The suction power comes from the amount of attraction in the solid phase per unit of volume in the porosity'.
My personal and professional losses due to USPTO negligent work are listed below:
1. I am seen as a scientist that writes useless patents because my deep knowledge is being ignored by USPTO supporting laypeople terminology. I am being rejected for being too advanced. This is unbelievable and unacceptable for a developed country. I was supposed to be handling a budget of some millions of dollars by now, hiring hundreds of employees, and filing dozens of new patents if USPTO had soon respected and enforced the claims under all my issued patents 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586 and others waiting.
2. I am near divorce since I am a serious scientist that does not bring money home to support my family. My project that is near 10 years running since I had to leave a public job in the government to pursue a scientific discovery that I believed was the tip of a huge gap in science and technology. Consequently, USPTO negligent work is also hurting my family that does not get my support for their basic need. Sincerely, I make just some money teaching English as a foreign language because my PhD at Penn State Univ. allowed me to get three issued patents that are blatantly violated for being too advanced for Patent Examiners and a sick system that does not like to pay fairly.
3. My partners patent attorneys are not representing me anymore because they think that I have no right to defend my own rights and ask USPTO to stop violating science and respect common knowledge in my Ph. D. textbooks instead of endorsing laypeople with shallow hydrological background. They closed my website http://www.tubarc.com/ and are to representing me no more, trying to dump the acquired rights under my issued patents. They even accused me of being a patent troller and rant. They do not understand that knowledge cannot be destroyed and that good side is likely to prevail over time. I am a scientist that spent 14 years studying Agricultural Sciences, with publications in the cover of journals, and even Bill Clinton was in my PhD commencement. I am a respected scientist that acquired strong background in Philosophy of Science knowing deeply the boundaries of knowledge and that wick is a device of lay people not addressed in the common literature of my PhD textbooks I earned at The Pennsylvania State University. It is unfair to call me troller when I did more than 3,000 experiments during seven years to gauge all the information necessary to grab new conceptions in hydrodynamics not yet in the scientific literature. My project is failing not because of Hydrological conceptions, but because of institutional negligence and disrespect to common knowledge on textbooks near a century. US pat. 6,766,817 is the first patent to mention the expression ‘Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow’ even it has been in the scientific literature since 1907 by Edgard Buckingham.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 049 Great Ideas http://one.revver.com/watch/162737
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 063 Plant Collection II http://revver.com/watch/201696
4. I am deeply disappointed with the USPTO because I spent 7 years doing research spending low personal resources in order to write my patent which ended up having 23 figure and 32 pages of text deeply opening new hydrological edges to promote many industries depending on hydrology of fluids moving on porosity. Lousy patents from laypeople are just ignoring my advanced knowledge with USPTO accomplice.
5. I had to send to USPTO notification letters of massive patent violation hurting deeply science simply because I am a poor scientist with no resources to sue at the Court of the Law all patents violating my IP rights, like multinationals do.
6. I had to record 130 videos so far and make them available online exposing USPTO negligent job and my image since I sent 30 letters to the press about the massive patent violation and there was not a single line in the press about my claims (Network News Service, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Daily News Incorporated, Miami Herald, Southwest Messenger Newspapers, Arkansas News Bureau, Bloomberg Business News, CBS Incorporated, Global Information Network, Houston Chronicle, Las Vegas News Bureau, New York Daily News, Pacific New Services, Reuters, Standard News, Tass News Agency, The Canadian Press, The Outlook, USA News Network, CNN, Headline News, ABC News Inc., AFP Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, New York Times, Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, Reuters, BBC News, USA TODAY)
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 001 Deep Science http://revver.com/watch/202377
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 002 Clinton http://revver.com/watch/198855
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 003 Advanced Gardening http://revver.com/watch/198867
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 004 Violation of Science http://revver.com/watch/196264
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 005 Self-Inking http://revver.com/watch/195052
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 011 Advanced Gardening http://revver.com/watch/198881
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 012 Water Balance http://revver.com/watch/198904
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 014 Christmas Gift http://revver.com/watch/202409
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 015 The Breakthrough http://revver.com/watch/200278
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 028 Massive Patent Violation http://revver.com/watch/195138
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 031 Neglecting Hydrology http://revver.com/watch/198767
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 032 Unsat. Hydraulic Siphon http://revver.com/watch/202701
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 037 Fluid Conductivity http://revver.com/watch/202740
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 038 Ignoring Text Books http://revver.com/watch/198806
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 039 A Scientific Discovery http://revver.com/watch/202454
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 040 Just Imagine http://revver.com/watch/195202
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 041 New Patents http://revver.com/watch/201226
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 058 Tubarc I http://revver.com/watch/160671
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 059 Tubarc II http://revver.com/watch/160663
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 060 Unsaturated Flow http://revver.com/watch/195183
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 062 Plant Collection I http://revver.com/watch/201743
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 061 Conductivity http://revver.com/watch/195195
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 064 Fluid Assessment http://revver.com/watch/201752
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 065 Dripping Unsat. Flow I http://revver.com/watch/201764
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 066 Dripping Unsat. Flow II http://revver.com/watch/201768
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 074 Molecular Filtering 2 http://revver.com/watch/201800
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 068 Dripping Unsat. Flow IV http://revver.com/watch/201780
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 070 Molecular Connectivity http://one.revver.com/watch/177314
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 069 Dripping Unsat. Flow V http://revver.com/watch/201785
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 071 Dripping Unsat Flow VI http://revver.com/watch/201790
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 072 Molecular Connectivity 2 http://revver.com/watch/201794
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 073 Molecular Filtering http://revver.com/watch/194996
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 067 Dripping Unsat. Flow III http://revver.com/watch/201771
Unhappily, Mr. Cho, the South Korean guy was right about one thing, good guys with PhD do not make headlines; only perverting actions that hurt innocents can get through the media, which profits more from atrocities than good deeds.
As a scientist I have a deep comprehension of life. Mr. Cho Seung-Hui was right about rich guys manipulating the system for their advantage and having negligent institutions supporting this trend. The applicant of US 20050126757 tried to claim the same drawing as Tubarc in their figure 4. The company failed to file a formally requested IDS, and only started discussing the subject after their lousy patent of poorly drawn figures and just two pages of texts with a paragraph in hydrology which was rejected by USPTO. The group company makes around $8 billion pounds worldwide yearly and moved their factory to China. There is a fair chance that this company is violating US 6,766,817 exporting manufactured product with that geometry it was aimed patent protection in the US.
Patent US 7,108,762 employs the same hydrology and geometry of Tubarc US 6,766,817 and was not supposed to be issued, but it got through using lay people terminology and low profile hydrology background. Any PhD in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology can confirm such conflict and many others I collect continuously that are leaking through a shallow hydrology from lay people not in the field with accomplice of USPTO for not having adequate personnel.
Mr. Cho was a troubled young man that did not understand that rich guys have different problems for being rich, like obesity and that when people die, they take no money or fame with them and that we have to live up to the end and see what we can score surviving and playing fair rules in balance with nature. Nature balance does not care about wealth or fame.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 030 Life Functioning http://revver.com/watch/198747
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 023 Mystery of Life Secret http://revver.com/watch/201171
I have near the same despair as Mr. Cho Seung-Hui. Since I am a PhD with deep understanding on life functioning and fairness to pursue our goals, I believe that my duty is to live my life to end, hurt no single innocent soul, and see USPTO canceling thousands of patents for violation of science and respect common knowledge on textbooks. Perhaps Mr. Thomas Edson is the man who got thousands of patents. I do not mind being the scientist canceling thousands of patents rescuing Hydrology from a strong disregard. Around 22,225 issued patents on wick/wicking likely fail as wick or the hydrology of oil lamps. No single patent on wick/wicking has ever measured Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity as taught in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. Around 80,154 issued patents on capillary/capillarity are very likely to hurt tube theory that is updated by new insights under by US 6,766,817.
My demand to USPTO is the following:
1. Immediately stop violating science by respecting the deep knowledge and advanced hydrology at Tubarc patents 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586. I suggest hiring Patent Examiners with background in Soil Physics and/or Hydrogeology so that they can provide a professional approval of fluids moving on porosity, respecting the claims and content of issued patents on advanced hydrology. Immediately stop accepting laypeople terminology of wick/wicking unless the subject is associated to oil lamps and candles.
2. Cancel thousands patents (95,413 on wick/wicking/capillary/capillarity) employing wick that fails as wick, and wicking that goes beyond the functioning of oil lamps hydrology, unsaturated hydraulic flow upward. Wick and wicking can only be allowed to oil lamps and candle because there is a complex and advanced science to address fluid moving on porosity that is standing on text books more than a century. Capillarity is only valid for fluids moving inside cylindrical structures as Tubarc is providing a technological upgrade for new conceptions in hydrodynamics.
3. Make a reasonable compensatory payment to myself for the damages to my professional and personal life, as well as my family, resulted from a negligent work so far letting many issued patents violate Tubarc patents. This is necessary to cover my accumulating losses since it may take some years till inventors and potential licensees start to understand that USPTO is a serious institution that intends to respect common knowledge holding on text books and that advanced science will prevail over laypeople terminology. Potential licensees will reward IP of 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586 only after USPTO shows that IP will be enforced under the law and common knowledge will be respected.
Just for your information, I have a family of three kids and two of my kids were born during my PhD in the US. Also, I ran two half-marathons while in the US. I have no guns and I think that hurting innocent people is a bad way to get media attention; even it works because the press has the main goal of making money as atrocities sells higher than good deeds like mine. Lots of information about me is available online.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Tubarc&search=Search
http://www.metacafe.com/user/3998421/tubarc
http://one.revver.com/find/video/tubarc
http://videolog.uol.com.br/busca.php?tags=tubarc
http://tubarc.blogspot.com/
As scientist I am conscious that we are facing a huge scientific and technological gap in Hydrology that after some repair should provide economic rewards to the patenting system and many industries delivering advanced products that bear enhanced hydrology for controlling hydrodynamic properties of fluids moving on porosity media.
The hydrology of my patents never fails, but my project is failing due to USPTO negligence handling my IP rights. Nobody is going to provide rewards compensation for my intellectual property if USPTO allows lay people terminology persists by a distorted system employing alternative ways to circumvent IP hurting science and disrespecting common knowledge standing on textbooks.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 058 Tubarc I http://revver.com/watch/160671
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 064 Fluid Assessment http://revver.com/watch/201752
If USPTO attends my demands, people will start to believe that the knowledge they get on text books is safely fit for patenting affairs having a serious institution honoring it encouraging new inventions and technological development.
I have no problem quitting my project and do something else in my life if USPTO is like Mr. Cho Seung-Hui thought as a rich guys toy for grabbing the resources and hurting science in a pretending society that the winner may likely be a subtle loser. If USPTO asserts that knowledge from my PhD textbooks are worthless there, then I should move on and do something else in my life. Hydrology never fails as many of my videos teach about it.
Kind regards,
Campinas, Brazil, April 20, 2006
Elson Silva, Ph. D.
Tubarc Technologies, LLC
Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838 Parque São Quirino
CEP 13088-300 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
Email: el_silva@uol.com.br
http://tubarc.blogspot.com/
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
THIRD NOTIFICATION OF CONTINUOUS MASSIVE IP VIOLATION AND DEMAND FOR COMPENSATION
It seems that USPTO is accountable for mishandling patenting issues violating science, ignoring common knowledge on text books, and driving my project to failure. I am accumulating many losses because advanced knowledge from my Ph. D. text books are being disregarded in favor of a language of laypeople not even in Hydrology. USPTO negligent work is resulting in damage to my personal and professional life as the institution fails on its mission discouraging inventors to pursue deep knowledge expanding the frontiers of science and technological innovations.
Frankly, any high school student understands that fluid movement deals with Hydrology and my Hydrology textbooks have nothing about wick or wicking. In the field of art of Hydrology there is nothing that deals with wick or wicking simply because this word from laypeople has compliances to thermodynamics associated to the functioning of oil lamps.
USPTO cannot allow a wick that fail as a wick, or any wicking that is different from the hydrology of oil lamps because it violates their implied etymology.
USPTO cannot allow the expression ‘capillary pumping’ simply because it hurts common knowledge in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology since there is no pumping and fluid moves in response to a gradient of unsaturated hydraulic flow potential.
I have this impression that Mr. Housel Attorney-Advisor does not understand much about patenting affairs. He said ‘While it is true that certain benefits may accrue from a strict rule for consistent use of the terminology, the U. S. patent system follow a more flexible, general principle that allows for a more fluid description of inventions. As such, the Office will generally only object to terminology in an application for patent if it would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to a misunderstanding of the invention described and claimed’.
He missed the most important point in the patenting process – comparison. After understanding the invention it is necessary to contrast the patent application with the present knowledge standing in the scientific literature and the issued patents holding in the database. How does Patent Examiners contrast laypeople language with terminology of advanced technology on issued patents? What is Hydrology Science saying about wicks? Is this claimed wick a real wick? Can it perform as a wick on oil lamps? Is not it unsaturated hydraulic flow as states since 1907 by Edgard Buckingham commonly mentioned on Soil Physics literature for fluids moving on porous systems and deeply portrayed at US pat. 6,766,817 as the first patent to gauge flow moving on artificial porosity media? Why to accept laypeople terminology when deep science is in the scientific literature starting in 1856 and now conveying to patenting under US 6,766,817?
Why is the Office accepting laypeople terminology and neglecting advanced science with common knowledge holding in the text books near a century?
I am not opposing to any laypeople terminology, but the precise scope of the words that is allowed under such etymology. Wicks can be accepted since the device can work as a wick standing high temperature of flames, and wicking within the scope of oil lamp hydrology, upward unsaturated flow toward a flame.
USPTO is disrespecting scientific common knowledge of fluid moving on porosity with the following long standing historic profile:
1. 1856 – Saturated Hydraulic Flow; Henry Darcy in France introduced the first conceptions of fluid moving on porosity when he was studying water flow dynamics on sandy filters. He proposed his famous Darcy's Law equation for Saturated Hydraulic Flow: ' the velocity of flow is proportional to the hydraulic gradient'.
2. 1907 – Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow: Near a century ago in order to describe water flow through unsaturated soil which is above the water table Egard Buckingham proposed a modification of Darcy's Law in 1907 trying to describe mathematically fluid flowing on porosity
3. 2004 – Unsaturated/Saturated Hydraulic Flow: US Pat. 6,766,817 p.1 line 65 : 'A fluid that possesses a positive pressure can be generally defined in the field of hydrology as saturated fluid. Likewise, a fluid that has a negative pressure (i.e., or suction) can be generally defined as an unsaturated fluid. Fluid matric potential can be negative or positive. For example, water standing freely at an open lake, can be said to stand under a gravity pull. The top surface of the liquid of such water accounts for zero pressure known as the water table or hydraulic head. Below the water table, the water matric potential (pressure) is generally positive because the weight of the water increases according to parameters of force per unit of area. When water rises through a capillary tube or any other porosity, the water matric potential (e.g., conventionally negative pressure or suction) is negative because the solid phase attracts the water upward relieving part of its gravitational pull to the bearing weight. The suction power comes from the amount of attraction in the solid phase per unit of volume in the porosity'.
My personal and professional losses due to USPTO negligent work are listed below:
1. I am seen as a scientist that writes useless patents because my deep knowledge is being ignored by USPTO supporting laypeople terminology. I am being rejected for being too advanced. This is unbelievable and unacceptable for a developed country. I was supposed to be handling a budget of some millions of dollars by now, hiring hundreds of employees, and filing dozens of new patents if USPTO had soon respected and enforced the claims under all my issued patents 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586 and others waiting.
2. I am near divorce since I am a serious scientist that does not bring money home to support my family. My project that is near 10 years running since I had to leave a public job in the government to pursue a scientific discovery that I believed was the tip of a huge gap in science and technology. Consequently, USPTO negligent work is also hurting my family that does not get my support for their basic need. Sincerely, I make just some money teaching English as a foreign language because my PhD at Penn State Univ. allowed me to get three issued patents that are blatantly violated for being too advanced for Patent Examiners and a sick system that does not like to pay fairly.
3. My partners patent attorneys are not representing me anymore because they think that I have no right to defend my own rights and ask USPTO to stop violating science and respect common knowledge in my Ph. D. textbooks instead of endorsing laypeople with shallow hydrological background. They closed my website http://www.tubarc.com/ and are to representing me no more, trying to dump the acquired rights under my issued patents. They even accused me of being a patent troller and rant. They do not understand that knowledge cannot be destroyed and that good side is likely to prevail over time. I am a scientist that spent 14 years studying Agricultural Sciences, with publications in the cover of journals, and even Bill Clinton was in my PhD commencement. I am a respected scientist that acquired strong background in Philosophy of Science knowing deeply the boundaries of knowledge and that wick is a device of lay people not addressed in the common literature of my PhD textbooks I earned at The Pennsylvania State University. It is unfair to call me troller when I did more than 3,000 experiments during seven years to gauge all the information necessary to grab new conceptions in hydrodynamics not yet in the scientific literature. My project is failing not because of Hydrological conceptions, but because of institutional negligence and disrespect to common knowledge on textbooks near a century. US pat. 6,766,817 is the first patent to mention the expression ‘Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow’ even it has been in the scientific literature since 1907 by Edgard Buckingham.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 049 Great Ideas http://one.revver.com/watch/162737
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 063 Plant Collection II http://revver.com/watch/201696
4. I am deeply disappointed with the USPTO because I spent 7 years doing research spending low personal resources in order to write my patent which ended up having 23 figure and 32 pages of text deeply opening new hydrological edges to promote many industries depending on hydrology of fluids moving on porosity. Lousy patents from laypeople are just ignoring my advanced knowledge with USPTO accomplice.
5. I had to send to USPTO notification letters of massive patent violation hurting deeply science simply because I am a poor scientist with no resources to sue at the Court of the Law all patents violating my IP rights, like multinationals do.
6. I had to record 130 videos so far and make them available online exposing USPTO negligent job and my image since I sent 30 letters to the press about the massive patent violation and there was not a single line in the press about my claims (Network News Service, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Daily News Incorporated, Miami Herald, Southwest Messenger Newspapers, Arkansas News Bureau, Bloomberg Business News, CBS Incorporated, Global Information Network, Houston Chronicle, Las Vegas News Bureau, New York Daily News, Pacific New Services, Reuters, Standard News, Tass News Agency, The Canadian Press, The Outlook, USA News Network, CNN, Headline News, ABC News Inc., AFP Agence France-Presse, Associated Press, New York Times, Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, Reuters, BBC News, USA TODAY)
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 001 Deep Science http://revver.com/watch/202377
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 002 Clinton http://revver.com/watch/198855
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 003 Advanced Gardening http://revver.com/watch/198867
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 004 Violation of Science http://revver.com/watch/196264
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 005 Self-Inking http://revver.com/watch/195052
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 011 Advanced Gardening http://revver.com/watch/198881
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 012 Water Balance http://revver.com/watch/198904
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 014 Christmas Gift http://revver.com/watch/202409
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 015 The Breakthrough http://revver.com/watch/200278
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 028 Massive Patent Violation http://revver.com/watch/195138
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 031 Neglecting Hydrology http://revver.com/watch/198767
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 032 Unsat. Hydraulic Siphon http://revver.com/watch/202701
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 037 Fluid Conductivity http://revver.com/watch/202740
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 038 Ignoring Text Books http://revver.com/watch/198806
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 039 A Scientific Discovery http://revver.com/watch/202454
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 040 Just Imagine http://revver.com/watch/195202
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 041 New Patents http://revver.com/watch/201226
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 058 Tubarc I http://revver.com/watch/160671
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 059 Tubarc II http://revver.com/watch/160663
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 060 Unsaturated Flow http://revver.com/watch/195183
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 062 Plant Collection I http://revver.com/watch/201743
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 061 Conductivity http://revver.com/watch/195195
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 064 Fluid Assessment http://revver.com/watch/201752
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 065 Dripping Unsat. Flow I http://revver.com/watch/201764
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 066 Dripping Unsat. Flow II http://revver.com/watch/201768
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 074 Molecular Filtering 2 http://revver.com/watch/201800
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 068 Dripping Unsat. Flow IV http://revver.com/watch/201780
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 070 Molecular Connectivity http://one.revver.com/watch/177314
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 069 Dripping Unsat. Flow V http://revver.com/watch/201785
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 071 Dripping Unsat Flow VI http://revver.com/watch/201790
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 072 Molecular Connectivity 2 http://revver.com/watch/201794
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 073 Molecular Filtering http://revver.com/watch/194996
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 067 Dripping Unsat. Flow III http://revver.com/watch/201771
Unhappily, Mr. Cho, the South Korean guy was right about one thing, good guys with PhD do not make headlines; only perverting actions that hurt innocents can get through the media, which profits more from atrocities than good deeds.
As a scientist I have a deep comprehension of life. Mr. Cho Seung-Hui was right about rich guys manipulating the system for their advantage and having negligent institutions supporting this trend. The applicant of US 20050126757 tried to claim the same drawing as Tubarc in their figure 4. The company failed to file a formally requested IDS, and only started discussing the subject after their lousy patent of poorly drawn figures and just two pages of texts with a paragraph in hydrology which was rejected by USPTO. The group company makes around $8 billion pounds worldwide yearly and moved their factory to China. There is a fair chance that this company is violating US 6,766,817 exporting manufactured product with that geometry it was aimed patent protection in the US.
Patent US 7,108,762 employs the same hydrology and geometry of Tubarc US 6,766,817 and was not supposed to be issued, but it got through using lay people terminology and low profile hydrology background. Any PhD in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology can confirm such conflict and many others I collect continuously that are leaking through a shallow hydrology from lay people not in the field with accomplice of USPTO for not having adequate personnel.
Mr. Cho was a troubled young man that did not understand that rich guys have different problems for being rich, like obesity and that when people die, they take no money or fame with them and that we have to live up to the end and see what we can score surviving and playing fair rules in balance with nature. Nature balance does not care about wealth or fame.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 030 Life Functioning http://revver.com/watch/198747
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 023 Mystery of Life Secret http://revver.com/watch/201171
I have near the same despair as Mr. Cho Seung-Hui. Since I am a PhD with deep understanding on life functioning and fairness to pursue our goals, I believe that my duty is to live my life to end, hurt no single innocent soul, and see USPTO canceling thousands of patents for violation of science and respect common knowledge on textbooks. Perhaps Mr. Thomas Edson is the man who got thousands of patents. I do not mind being the scientist canceling thousands of patents rescuing Hydrology from a strong disregard. Around 22,225 issued patents on wick/wicking likely fail as wick or the hydrology of oil lamps. No single patent on wick/wicking has ever measured Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity as taught in Soil Physics and Hydrogeology. Around 80,154 issued patents on capillary/capillarity are very likely to hurt tube theory that is updated by new insights under by US 6,766,817.
My demand to USPTO is the following:
1. Immediately stop violating science by respecting the deep knowledge and advanced hydrology at Tubarc patents 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586. I suggest hiring Patent Examiners with background in Soil Physics and/or Hydrogeology so that they can provide a professional approval of fluids moving on porosity, respecting the claims and content of issued patents on advanced hydrology. Immediately stop accepting laypeople terminology of wick/wicking unless the subject is associated to oil lamps and candles.
2. Cancel thousands patents (95,413 on wick/wicking/capillary/capillarity) employing wick that fails as wick, and wicking that goes beyond the functioning of oil lamps hydrology, unsaturated hydraulic flow upward. Wick and wicking can only be allowed to oil lamps and candle because there is a complex and advanced science to address fluid moving on porosity that is standing on text books more than a century. Capillarity is only valid for fluids moving inside cylindrical structures as Tubarc is providing a technological upgrade for new conceptions in hydrodynamics.
3. Make a reasonable compensatory payment to myself for the damages to my professional and personal life, as well as my family, resulted from a negligent work so far letting many issued patents violate Tubarc patents. This is necessary to cover my accumulating losses since it may take some years till inventors and potential licensees start to understand that USPTO is a serious institution that intends to respect common knowledge holding on text books and that advanced science will prevail over laypeople terminology. Potential licensees will reward IP of 6,766,817, 6,918,404, and 7,066,586 only after USPTO shows that IP will be enforced under the law and common knowledge will be respected.
Just for your information, I have a family of three kids and two of my kids were born during my PhD in the US. Also, I ran two half-marathons while in the US. I have no guns and I think that hurting innocent people is a bad way to get media attention; even it works because the press has the main goal of making money as atrocities sells higher than good deeds like mine. Lots of information about me is available online.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Tubarc&search=Search
http://www.metacafe.com/user/3998421/tubarc
http://one.revver.com/find/video/tubarc
http://videolog.uol.com.br/busca.php?tags=tubarc
http://tubarc.blogspot.com/
As scientist I am conscious that we are facing a huge scientific and technological gap in Hydrology that after some repair should provide economic rewards to the patenting system and many industries delivering advanced products that bear enhanced hydrology for controlling hydrodynamic properties of fluids moving on porosity media.
The hydrology of my patents never fails, but my project is failing due to USPTO negligence handling my IP rights. Nobody is going to provide rewards compensation for my intellectual property if USPTO allows lay people terminology persists by a distorted system employing alternative ways to circumvent IP hurting science and disrespecting common knowledge standing on textbooks.
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 058 Tubarc I http://revver.com/watch/160671
Pursuing a Scientific Discovery 064 Fluid Assessment http://revver.com/watch/201752
If USPTO attends my demands, people will start to believe that the knowledge they get on text books is safely fit for patenting affairs having a serious institution honoring it encouraging new inventions and technological development.
I have no problem quitting my project and do something else in my life if USPTO is like Mr. Cho Seung-Hui thought as a rich guys toy for grabbing the resources and hurting science in a pretending society that the winner may likely be a subtle loser. If USPTO asserts that knowledge from my PhD textbooks are worthless there, then I should move on and do something else in my life. Hydrology never fails as many of my videos teach about it.
Kind regards,
Campinas, Brazil, April 20, 2006
Elson Silva, Ph. D.
Tubarc Technologies, LLC
Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838 Parque São Quirino
CEP 13088-300 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
Email: el_silva@uol.com.br
http://tubarc.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
