US Patent Office rejects bubble fusion patent

US Patent Office rejects bubble fusion patent


Title:	US Patent Office rejects bubble fusion patent
Released by:	Thomas V. Prevenslik
Release Date:	2006-04-30 18:51:53
Summary:	But prior patents granted in bubble fusion are not rejected and still valid
Website:	http://www.oocities.org/thomas_prevenslik

For_Immediate_Release:

Bubble fusion is related to the field of sonoluminescence (SL) where high temperatures are generally thought to explain the visible light observed in the collapse of bubbles in water under ultrasound, the high temperatures claimed as utility in initiating nuclear reactions and enhancing chemical reactions in sonochemistry. Currently, in sonochemistry temperatures from 5,000 to 15,000 degrees are claimed while in bubble fusion the temperatures claimed exceed 2 million degrees.

Recently, allegations of fraud in bubble fusion research by Taleyarkhan at Purdue University were reported. See "Purdue to Review Bubble Fusion" – www.free-press-release.com/news/200603/1142567086.html - 16 Mar 2006. Not widely reported, however, was that the US patent office (USPTO) rejected Taleyarkhan's bubble-fusion patent application filed at Oak Ridge in 2002 on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE). See "A sound investment?" www.oocities.org/qedpressrelease/sound.html and "Once is happenstance" - www.oocities.org/qedpressrelease/happenchance.html

In rejecting Taleyarkhan’s patent application, USPTO examiner Ricardo Palabrica stated the application was “no more than just an unproven concept”. However, this USPTO rejection appears to single-out Taleyarkhan’s patent application when in fact the USPTO over a half century has granted patent to other applicants on the same incredible claim that utility in chemical and nuclear reactions may be derived from the high temperatures in the collapse of bubbles under ultrasound, the USPTO leaving the respective issued patents uncorrected and still valid.

For example, the USPTO issued bubble fusion patent to Hugh Flynn of the University of Rochester in 1970. See US 4,333,796: "Method of generating energy by acoustically induced cavitation fusion and reactor therefor." More recently, the USPTO awarded American Technologies Group researcher Shui-Yin Lo a bubble fusion patent in 1997. In the same year, the USPTO granted Seth Putterman of UCLA a patent for a bubble fusion. See US 5,659,173: "Converting acoustic energy into useful other energy forms."

In bubble fusion and sonochemistry, the USPTO has awarded patent based on the delusion and fantasy that high temperatures are produced in the collapse of vapor bubbles under ultrasound. But for some strange reason, the temperatures claimed in sonochemistry are considerably lower than in bubble fusion, even though the bubble collapse follows the same physics. 　

By Le Chatelier’s principle, the water vapor in collapsing bubbles takes the minimum energy path in response to the decreasing volume by condensing to liquid instead of taking the higher energy path by increasing in temperature and pressure, as would be the case in a collapsing air filled bubble. Except for some small non-equilibrium effect, the water vapor in bubble collapse condenses with less tan about a 60 C rise in temperature, and therefore claims of 5,000 to 15,000 degrees in sonochemistry are just as ludicrous as claims of 2 million degrees in bubble fusion.

Since 1970, the USPTO by accepting the erroneous explanation that the SL light was caused by high temperature has awarded US patent on false prior art. Even though neutrons have never been found in bubble fusion and sonochemical and bubble fusion reactor walls have never melted at claimed temperatures of 5,000 to 2 million degrees, the issued patents remain on the USPTO record as prior art from which any patent application based on an alternative explanation of the SL light is summarily rejected, See "Fraud in US Patent Office perpetrates perhaps the greatest hoax in the history of science" - www.free-press-release.com/news/200505/1117575404.html dated 5 May 2005. Taking the USPTO to the federal courts for the fraudulent rejection of a patent application is now under appeal before the Fourth Circuit. See "The fraud of high temperatures in sonoluminescence now at the Fourth Circuit appeals court." - www.oocities.org/qedpressrelease/8August05.htm dated 8 August 2005.

One reason why the USPTO has issued patents on claims of high temperature in sonochemistry and bubble fusion for a half-century is that US patent law (USC Title 35) does not provide a way to correct patents after they have been granted consistent with latest findings and technical advances.

Currently, a patent can be challenged and the USPTO can review the patent if the patent becomes the subject of litigation over infringement. But the issue of infringement is quite different from false prior art, as would be alleged by a third party inventor for the rejection of his patent application. USC Title 35 does allow third party inventors to ask the Patent Office to reexamine ex parte the award of a granted patent to determine if the patent award was proper in the circumstances. Since the third party inventor is excluded from the ex parte reexamination process, and since the USPTO is already culpable for allowing the false prior art to reject the third party inventor’s application, the USPTO is unlikely to admit a mistake and reverse its rejection, especially if the reversal goes against high profile research organizations such as Oak Ridge, UCLA, The University of Rochester, and Purdue University.

Legislation now pending in Congress is directed to why it is vitally important for the USPTO to be able to correct patents even after they have been issued. Of interest here is that third party inventors are to be directly involved and allowed to introduce appropriate evidence in the reexamination process. See "Patent Quality Improvement: Post-Grant Opposition, Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives." -
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/108th/94459.pdf

But for Congress to make the legislation law is expected to take 2-5 years, and therefore any immediate resolution of the false prior art of high temperatures in the collapse of vapor bubbles under ultrasound is unlikely. Hopefully, the USPTO on its own initiative in an ex parte action pursuant to USC Title 35 can do the right thing and invalidate the high temperature claims of patents in sonochemistry and bubble fusion.

Website: http://www.oocities.org/thomas_prevenslik

For more details:
USA address: PO Box 515, Youngwood, PA 15697
Hong Kong adress: 15H, Greenwood, Discovery Bay

Keywords: patent,bubble fusion,taleyarkhan,purdue university