A R E Y O U B R E A K I N G T H E L A W ?
“Inventors filing patents are expecting that Patent Examiners be technically trained in the field they are providing judgment”
Then my VERY simple question is:
Are you a Hydrologist having certified competency to examine Hydrological issues on patenting affairs?
I have three issued patents on advanced Hydrology from Soil/Geo Sciences demanding Hydrological issues to be handled by Patent Examiners that do understand advanced Hydrology of my PhD textbooks and the scope of my standing claims on fluidic devices expanding human knowledge beyond present boundaries with new conceptions in Hydrodynamics harnessing Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow.
Below there is a more detailed explanation about a senior and director Patent Examiner making flaws about basic hydrology conceptions for not being knowledgeable in Hydrology Science.
“Am I rude by demanding that USPTO let only Hydrologists examine Hydrological issues?”
“Who would be the experts known in the Art of Hydrology? Hydrologists?”
“Who takes care of LEGAL ISSUES at USPTO? Lawyers?
Then, why not just letting Hydrologists take care of Hydrology in the Patent Examination Process ? ? ?
My questions to all 2,074 Patent Examiners so far found issuing patents associated to fluidic devices are:
Are you a Hydrologist?
Were you trained in Hydrological Sciences?
At a Court of the Law can you prove by your resume that you took disciplines like Soil Physics, Hydrology or Hydrogeology in Geosciences/Soil Science? Soil Physics deals with advanced Hydrology of water moving on porosity systems.
Do you have a full comprehension on “Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow” principles?
“Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow” is a technical expression in the first claim of my issued patent that you are required to respect.
Initially I thought that I had stumbled to a sort of “scientific discovery’ in hydrodynamics. But, recently I figured out that my new conceptions were partially hidden behind a strong distortion in the patenting system from lay people dealing with Hydrology. Lay people are ignoring knowledge on classical Hydrology standing on scientific literature more than a century. Flawed patents hurting science and infringing my issued patents suggests that Patent Examiners are likely overstepping Ethic boundaries examining patents in Hydrology having not enough background in the area upon a subject they do not understand as required.
During my PhD in Soil Science/Spatial Applied Hydrology at Penn State Univ. when I was attending many Hydrology classes in Soil Sciences, Geosciences I recall seeing NO Mechanical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Chemists, Biochemists, etc. as peer students in my classrooms.
It seems that Mechanical Engineering and many other sciences developed a sort of ‘quick’ Applied Hydrology far away from Classical Hydrology stripping basic knowledge and even creating some distorting terminology that hurts basic science like ‘capillary pumping’, ‘capillary wicking’, wicking action, wicking index, wicking, etc. Certainly there is no pumping in capillarity as fluid moves itself responding to a fluid matric gradient by unsaturated hydraulic flow. Tubarc upgrades capillarity conceptions since it is hard to contrive a cylindrical structure in the porosity around randomly arranged irregular soil particles as tube geometry does not allow lateral flow for anisotropy on porosity structures.
US 6,766,817 p. 2. line 60 ‘Specialized scientific literature about unsaturated zones also recognizes this shortcoming. For example: "Several differences and complications must be considered. One complication is that concepts of unsaturated flow are not as fully developed as those for saturated flow, nor are they as easily applied." (See Dominico & Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Pg. 88. Wiley). Concepts of unsaturated flow have not been fully developed to date, because the "capillary action" utilized to measure the adhesion-cohesion force of porosity is restrained by capillary tube geometry conceptions. The term "capillary action" has been wrongly utilized in the art as a synonym for unsaturated flow, which results in an insinuation that the tube geometry conception captures this phenomenon when in truth it does not.’
When a fluid moves the science behind it is called HYDROLOGY and none of my PhD textbooks ever mentioned a word ‘wick/wicking’ simply because this expression is used by lay people not in Hydrology and has connotation to the combination of Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics in the restrict functioning of oil lamps delivering fuel upward to a flame. ‘Lay people’ have been abusing it by skirting Hydrology and making basic mistakes like happened to US 7,285,255 hurting common knowledge on textbooks as consequence of missing appropriate background.
“– But, Dr. Silva, even a caveman knows what a wick is in the art!”
“– Indeed, he does!” So, you give him the wick of your patent application and he will test and tell you if it works on his old oil lamp. If your claimed wick fails on his oil lamp he will tell you that you got something else that is not a wick anymore. Then, your patent application is cheating the caveman, the Patenting System, and long standing advanced Hydrology Science by claiming something that does not hold any longer.
A massive violation of SCIENCE is taking place and I have sent five notification letters to USPTO suggesting it hiring Patent Examiners with appropriate background in Geosciences to handle fluids moving on porosity systems (October 20, 2006, November 28, 2006, December 14, 2006, August 2, 2007, August 5, 2007).
For near a century USPTO has fed an evident bias against Hydrology that needs to be fixed because Classical Hydrology is standing on scientific literature much earlier for a very long time as flaws results from lay people missing available knowledge. Henry Darcy proposed a Law about Hydraulic Conductivity in 1856.
When looking at Conductivity approach, Heat is mentioned in around 66,533 issued patents, Electricity 48,135 issued patents while Hydrology only 462 issued patents, but for the hydrology of wicks (unsaturated flow) not even a single patent ever address conductivity among near 23,379 issued patents from lay people addressing wick/wicking.
How relevant is the Hydrology of your patent application under Examination?
If you are not a Hydrologist you cannot argue anything about the relevance since you are just a lay person outside your field of expertise. Only a Chemist can say how much Chemistry is relevant to a certain patent application. I am not a Chemist, even though I took many Chemistry disciplines in my entire professional life like Organic, Inorganic, Physicochemistry, Biochemistry, Soil Chemistry, Food Chemistry, etc. How many Hydrology disciplines have you attended? How about Hydrogeology?
Patent Examiner, you do not need to risk your professional liability judging in a technical area you were not trained for. In the last two years I have been suggesting USPTO to hire Patent Examiners with background in Hydrology/Hydrogeology and it seems that 3200 Patent Examiners had been hired. By now USPTO should have appropriate personnel for Patent Examination regarding Hydrology issues if my advice was considered.
It is your personal responsibility to work within your allowed Ethical boundaries.
My issued patent 6,766,817 delivers a deep Hydrology requiring Patent Examiners background in Hydrology to protect my claims.
Mr. Gregory Moser Patent Commissioner said that USPTO is careless if any issued patent violates SCIENCE, meaning that flawed patents can be issued willy-nilly. It seems that you are free and protected to violate Science within your own professional expertise. But, it seems that you can provide a biased judgment only within your own SCIENCE, but not to other SCIENCES outside your ethical boundaries and technical skills.
If you issue a flawed patent that does not work, nobody gets hurt. It simply does not work according to the Patent Commissioner. But if you issue a flawed patent outside your professional boundaries, you can be accountable for breaking the Law on Ethics ground providing a decision on a field you are not licensed for.
Flawed patents are less likely to result when Examiners are judging strictly within the boundaries of their due expertise. Then, it becomes a fair deal to expel Lay People from Hydrology. There are 1,958,471 issued patents associated with “fluid OR liquid OR flow OR fluidic”. I found 2,074 Patent Examiners that are likely overstepping their expertise boundaries. YOU may be one of them hurting science, breaking the Law and feeding a persistent bias against Hydrology.
Do you know what Unsaturated Zones are? (It seems that my patents are the first ones to mention it in the patenting systems)
IF not, perhaps you should let experts in Hydrology judge upon fluidic devices. The flaw at US 7,285,255 missed it deeply.
“If I were you I would read carefully US 6,766,817 and check your resume if you were indeed trained in Water Sciences so you could judge fairly in a subject you are supposed to understand within your Ethical boundaries.”
My project is not supposed to fail because the Hydrology of my issued patents match the content of my PhD textbooks and Nature functioning. I carried out thousands of experiments to be confident that my results developing new conceptions in Hydrodynamics fit theoretical grounds. I simply was not expecting USPTO be affected by a internal structural bias against Hydrology letting Patent Examiners break the Law on Ethical ground examining in a field they were not licensed to. It is very unlikely that any Patent Examiner examining Hydrology has ever taken disciplines of Hydrology/Hydrogeology/Soil Physics.
There is an amazing inquire about my scientific adventures. I am aware that a genuine new idea, a real breakthrough, should bring problems as a patent subject since Examiners are also human beings not aware of innovations outside their routine. But, what if this new idea is indeed portrayed deeply in my PhD textbooks and holding in the scientific literature more than a century. How much pressure can I exert to the system to adopt something so new and so old and already absorbed by a community far away from patenting affairs? I think that I do know the answer. Hydrology was overtaken by lay people professionals in other fields that do not want to yield it back to Hydrologists which are missing a chance of being inside the patenting system taking care of a deep Hydrology already available as knowledge on old textbooks.
Hydrology has been neglected so deeply that I can teach students playing with Advanced Self-Watering System and measure Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity (K). This is what lay people missed in the patenting system (just click).
The second figure of US 7,285,255 has a flaw because the ‘wick’ needs to cross the water table reference between Unsaturated and Saturated Hydraulic Zones on the second figure for water to drop and a video can show it in 5 minutes what lay people missed in a patenting approval.
When a Patent Supervisor and Director (Ms Gladys Corcoran) issues a flawed patent US 7,285,255 hurting Hydrology and my issued patents you have to start asking yourselves the underlying reasoning of your potential wrong doings and the consequences afterwards in case you are crossing the boundaries of the Law. This is not a common mistake by a junior Patent Examiner but senior experienced professionals working outside their expertise.
Ms Gladys J. P. Corcoran and Mr. Sean E Conley Primary and Assistant Examiner four months earlier issued 7,244,398 (July 17, 2007) citing my issued patent 6,766,817 meaning that they were aware of the new conceptions in hydrodynamics disclaimed in the art if they were knowledgeable in the art of Hydrology. Consequently the flaw issued at US 7,285,255 (October 23, 2007) was a simple consequence of careless professionals working off their expertise boundaries ignoring advanced Hydrology already on literature and updated by 6,766,817, very likely breaking the Law on Ethic boundaries.
Did Ms. Corcoran and Mr. Conley read US 6,766,817 when they cited it at 7,244,398 (
‘But, Dr. Silva, Hydrology is not in the claims!’ Of course not, how can you expect lay people address or claim something beyond their comprehension. Would that device, and many others around, work accordingly without fluid dynamics?
I think that people cannot infringe IP rights arguing about technical ignorance on the subject.
Just be aware that I am a scientist used to pursue rainfall anomalies in the complex water cycle of Amazon basin and now protecting my science by hunting down lay people messing with Hydrology just requires a new direction on the spatial analyses approach.
It seems that when an idea is invented many times with different etymology it foster institutional budget on patenting, but it hurts science deeply regarding honesty and coherence to Nature functioning. Inventors are not allowed to invent many Gravity Laws with different names.
If you think that everybody understands Hydrology you are mistaken because my issued patent
People do understand what happens when they violate Ethical boundaries under The Law – it is a crime. When you go to a Dentist you would not accept a Soil Scientist treating your teeth. So, I am expecting Hydrologists do the hydrological judging in the patenting affairs protecting and respecting my advanced hydrological claims.
Great ideas are born from simplicity and now I have to invent a special way to make people respect my invention.
Why am I sending you this email? “You cannot argue about a MASSIVE unawareness facing a breakthrough”
It is quite simple; when I take you to the Court of the Law you will not be able to allege that you were NOT aware of breaking the Law on Ethics by judging over an advanced science that you were not trained for in case you are not a Hydrologist. I have advised USPTO in the last two years about violation of Science and the importance of hiring appropriate Patent Examiners with background in Hydrology/Hydrogeology/Soil Physics. It is prudent to be patient with new ideas invented, but my claims even represent a breakthrough are standing as common knowledge for near a century.
Put in your mind that I am a scientist caring neither for money nor for fame. I just like doing things and I trust my science and my PhD textbooks. If anybody steals my ideas and uses them around without paying me royalties it is not so bad since nature does not support our economic system anyway. But, infringing my patents with flaws that even do not work is just unacceptable, because it hurts the common knowledge from my science that is supposed to be honored by the Patent Office. In case I get any economic reward on my project I will try to make a good use of fostering a better survival balance toward Nature principles.
I see no difference between dying poor and unknown or rich and famous. Life has an underlying strong resilient power to struggle and as part of this cycle we should try to work our lives on improving human existence. My reasoning about the richest country in the world having two-third of their citizens either obese or overweight tells me that top minds are just blind to read nature functioning on advance science and development. The equation of energy balance goes far beyond input and output to make it stay in equilibrium as nature designed it with no economic concerns.
If you are not a Hydrologist, just stay away from fluidic applications. YOU CAN BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR HURTING HYDROLOGY IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
How could anybody examine fluidic applications without knowing Hydrology?
Where is the magic? Cheating? Distorting the Patenting System?
As a scientist I have to make a final statement. Certainly I am threatening nobody but suggesting Patent Examiners to stay away from Hydrology if they are not Hydrologists. The time for lay people to play Hydrology is over, just a century late. In case you like Hydrology go to any college and take a course coming back afterwards. I even have some videos online teaching advanced gardening by a Soil Science PhD expanding hydrodynamic conceptions and having fun.
Tell me why inventors should file patents if advanced science can be ignored in favor of lay people getting flawed patents.
If you are not going to respect a PhD inventor and common knowledge on OLD textbooks, you’d better close USPTO and go home because there are no more reasons for regular citizens to file patents anymore.
I am not a regular citizen lay person inventing a new can opener, but a PhD scientist expanding boundaries of knowledge and developing new conceptions in Hydrodynamics. The flaw at US 7,285,255 is a shame to the USPTO policy regarding respect to science. Hydrology has been hurt very hard on patenting affairs.
Av. Dr. Julio Soares de Arruda, 838
Parque São Quirino
13088-300 Campinas, SP, Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
p.s. Hydrological background missing in the patenting system
m i c r o p o r o s i t y m a c r o p o r o s i t y
Hydrology has been neglected on fluidic devices by Inventors, Patent Attorneys, and also Patent Examiners. There is a vertical analytical assessment in Hydrology dealing the fluid matric gradient which is the underlying conception for unsaturated flow allowing a spatial analyses approach gauging fluid dynamics in time and space. It seems that such features were never portrayed in the patenting affairs.
US 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.’
Lawyers do not want to get involved into any embarrassing situation like happened to The Procter & Gamble Company that declined any interest on my five idea applications: 11526, 11170, 11533, 11534, and 11979. But, afterwards my ideas started coming poorly inside their patent applications and I had to ask IDS like happened to 20080015531.
“When rejecting something it is important to have confidence that you do not need it, and that you have no intention to overstep such rejected boundaries. It may be a pretension to be smart or just an evidence of missing wisdom.”
I think that this outcome might be associated to missing expertise and negligence to pay attention to rejected ideas preventing them coming inside the claims of new applications. My suggestion to Law Firms and general companies filing patents on fluidic devices is to hire experts from Geosciences so that the advanced Hydrology from my textbooks and my issued patents are respected scientifically and legally.
I am glad that my rejected ideas are useful, but my plans were to collect IP royalties and provide some technical consultancy streamlining product performance and reliability fairly paying back technological advancement. After all my new conceptions in Hydrodynamics allow higher control on fluid flow and retention properties dealing with porosity for solid:liquid:air interactions. It is indeed awkward when my deep science and IP is rejected and suddenly it starts coming poorly inside patent applications of a potential licensee! Rejecting ideas and absorbing them could be a critical issue to take to Courts for hurting fairness! Perhaps technological outdating is enough reprimand since advanced Hydrology can thrust a strong bottleneck on fluidic applications.
Since Jul 25, 2001 Tubarc
1. PRIOR ART - Wick = device to conduct fuel upward toward a flame on oil lamp (Thermodynamics + Hydrodynamics)
2. IP - Tubarc = device that fails to conduct fuel on oil lamp revealing a complex hydrology (Reversible Unsaturated Siphon)
1. PRIOR ART - Capillary Action = flow of fluid inside cylindrical geometry of capillaries
2. IP - Tubarc Action = flow of fluid on general porosity (random or enhanced) allowing higher control on hydrodynamic properties
It is possible to draw a precise line on the scientific boundaries between wick, capillary, and Tubarc since inventors filing patents with fluidic devices are not aware of such technical limits and likely overlapping Tubarc boundaries. Below are some insights according to Hydrogeology/Soil Physics:
Present etymological use of fluids moving on porosity according to USPTO database by patent search hits (
3 “Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow” (All Tubarc Patents)
19 “Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity” (3 Tubarc Patents)
460 “Hydraulic Conductivity” (3 Tubarc Patents)
34 “Unsaturated Flow”
232 “Capillary pumping”
19,585 “Capillary (Force OR Action OR Movement)
23,297 “Wick or Wicking”
47,928 “Electrical Conductivity”
1,268 “Heat Pipe and Wick”
66,276 “Thermal/Heat Conductivity”
This finding above show clearly that inventors filing patents dealing with fluid moving on porosity lack schooling from Geosciences or Soil Sciences (Hydrogeology/Soil Physics) to appropriately address hydrological applications of fluid moving on porous systems.