Friday, August 10, 2007

Fourth Notification of Violation of Science

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


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?


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.


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

No comments: