Correspondence

Adrian Vance, 1400 Ricca Court, Lakeport, CA 95453 707-263-6739

March 29, 2009

Mr. Carlos Barcena, Examiner

Commissioner for Patents

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Dear Mr. Barcena:

          I was shocked to be officially accused by an Examiner of the USPTO of having copied a foreign patent without anything to prove it!  Your charge is unsupported.  Then, you denied a claim with defective patent 3,664,134.  Every chemistry student knows gases do not dissolve in aqueous solutions at  temperatures over 80 Celsius degrees!   This is not to be excused.  You are in my opinion angry, careless and incompetent.

          Furthermore, you made an issue of the fact that I did not use “steps” in my claims.  A search of all existing patents shows that 1,548,056 have that word in them which means that 80% are not valid by your interpretation of  35 USC 112, which is invalid as 35 USC 101 reads:

35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”

          And you also cite 35 C 112 which reads:

35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.

“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claim­ing the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form.

Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limita­tion of the subject matter claimed. A claim in depen­dent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.

A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.”

          On reading my original claims I saw no problem and after 58 years of writing for money am considered knowledgeable of the language, but I have edited said claims (a little lawyerly lingo) to try to comply with your needs.

          In response to your “Office Action Summary” received here on or about March 1, 2009, I respond to “Detailed Action:”

Per “1.” – All applicable patents were listed.  There are no publications calling for the use of CO2 as an underground fertilizer.  Said literature only identifies CO2 as “an aerial fertilizer” which is not our method.

          Per your standards: Our listing was on a single sheet, but numbered in the set.  We are here resubmitting it as a separate sheet, unnumbered, and on USPTO Form 892 per your instruction.

Per “2.” – The abstract has been rewritten and where it was 104 words in two paragraphs.  It is now 72 words in one paragraph.

          We think the language is clear and concise, not replete with idiomatic English or narrative if you mean “story.”  I have been on the masthead of two national magazines, written for 12, contributed to articles in The Smithsonian; have 325 screen credits in educational film for the largest educational publishers in the world.  I studied existing patents and the Nolo, David Pressman book for the format and style.  I believe I hit the mark and understand the process.

Per “Arrangement of the Specification” - In the resubmission we have followed the model.  However, I have added one Figure, that of the “bomb” CO2 generator as an illumination of Fig. 4, i.e. Fig. 4a. It is well described in the document and not a material addition, only an illumination.

          You say our style is “narrative,” but I am not saying “Then I put…” or some such.  I have written and published over two million words, much in narrative.  I know what it is and this submission is not in story form, but unlike 80% of all patents it is readable, understandable and utterly accurate. I have prepared edited and “clean” versions per instruction. 

Re: “Claim Objections”  “They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.”

          I take particular exception to this accusation, deny it out-of-hand and insist said foreign document be produced or an apology follow as this is an accusation of material theft, plagiarism, fraud and as professional harm is here done actionable.

          Where “I claim:  the use of carbon dioxide as green plant fertilizer when applied to soil or water at any depth by any means for feeding or fertilizing green plants of any kind to enhance growth and reduce water transpired by such plants,” what is unclear? 

          Claim 3 did not call for the use of carbon dioxide per your criticism and where it says, “I claim:  the use of elementary carbon allotropes or “Fullerenes” as soil amendments, permanent carbon sinks and soil improvements in terms of water retention and fertility as well as verifiable carbon offsets.”  What is in question?   Do you not understand “elementary” in reference to carbon as an element?  Nonetheless, all three have been rewritten to deal with your unclear criticism.

          I dispute and challenge the idea these claims are “narrative,” idiomatic and indefinite or failing to conform to current US practice unless you are insisting on the archaic, staid practice of substituting “said” for every “the” as done by patent attorneys.  That is archaic, silly and uncommunicative.  It should be the objective of patent language to be precise, not ridiculous.

Per: “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102” “4” A person is entitled to a patent unless “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.”

          OK, put up evidence or shut up and genuflect.  This is false, baseless, reckless and insulting.  How dare you impugn my integrity and reputation so recklessly?  This is my concept and this patent should be granted.

Per “5” “Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Seitz (3,664,134).”  I object because the Seitz patent is fatally flawed and invalid.  I found it and passed on it knowing it is ridiculous.   I here cite:  From “TheEngineeringToolbox.com”

Solubility of Carbon Dioxide - CO₂ - in Water

CO2 solubility is zero above 80 degrees Celsius by graphic projection, extending the curve, or the Momentum Equation where in a data sequence of figures A, B and C, to predict “D” equals C –[(B-C)^2/(A-B) per iteration; the process moving forward to make “B,” the next “A,” “B,” the next “C” and so on. 

In this numeric projection the curve passes through zero at 80 Celsius degrees which is in complete agreement with fact.  Gases are insoluble in water above 80 Celsius degrees according to every college Gen. Chem. text and this fact is employed to prepare “aqua pura” for standardizing analytical reagents. 

The Seitz system will not work where the solution is boiling as it must when directly impinged by gases he declares are at 600 Fahrenheit degrees, 315 Celsius!  Calcium carbonate in aqueous solution is totally dissociated over 75 Celsius degrees according to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 51^st Edition, 1970-71 and emits CO2 in response to more heat.  The Seitz patent is a fraud, but was approved and this was not the last of such patents that I found.  And, there lies a story.

Per “Conclusion”

          I am a first-time patent applicant, but studying this field revealed only one patent in 1300 makes more than fees according to an SEC filing by the Davison Patent Development organization.  In my own investigation of them I submitted a disclosure for a joke device called The RectoLux as a test and they responded with a sales pitch. (See inclusion RectoLux)

Seeking Professional Help

I contacted ten organizations.  Eight responded with sales pitches, one ignored me and the Invention Home Corp. in Pennsylvania called thanking me for a good laugh, the reaction for which I was looking.  I paid them $400 for a patent search, but it was less effective than mine.  I complained and they put me in contact with James Ray & Associates, their patent attorneys.  Mr. Ray apologized for the poor work begging off that searchers “only have so much time.”  But, they had charged me $400 for a “professional job.”

Mr. Ray expressed great enthusiasm for my concept and wanted to file a provisional without additional money so I agreed and his interest was such that he wanted to partner with me, but later wanted $8,000 more for filing a final.  By then I had other problems him and dissolved the partnership.

          According to the literature, patent blogs and patent groups on Yahoo, 25% of all patents are submitted by individuals.  I read 250 patents, noting that 62 of them were without lawyers.  That is 25% confirming the quoted figure. I quickly noticed these patents were flawless, but attorney prepped patents were not.  I did not analyze all 250 patents, but did analyze my ten.

          In my application I cite the ten applicable patents.  Three were by individuals, 30%.  Two were flawless, one was fraudulent, while in those prepared by lawyers I found 92 errors; all eight wounded fatally.  To wit:

          In US Patent 3,099,898 by M.J Harris, Jr. entitled “Agricultural Process and Apparatus for Carrying Out The Same,” a very curious title, but in reference US Patent 2,943,419 of which it is a copy.  Why 3,099,898 was filed, much less approved, is in question as it is the same document, save an introductory paragraph.

          I am prepared to dissect this patent, but here offer a summary:  The disclosure calls for taking exhaust from a farm tractor engine to make a variety of products for fertilization of farm crops in the field.  How a small, one-cylinder compressor deals with exhaust of a much larger multi-cylinder engine is the first issue, but it is then followed by two devices worthy of Star Trek ostensibly for sorting molecules. 

In the first case exhaust gases are sent by an undefined “sonic device,” of unstated function, then through a circuitous path to a large chamber where it is claimed light gas molecules exit the top tube, heavier gases are to exit through a lower tube and liquid water goes to the bottom tube.  This is only accomplished if molecules are under intelligent control, having tiny pilots, Satanic or Divine Intervention.  Where none are likely this is nonsense.

          The inventor offers an alternative including a “Venturi scrubber” with an undefined function and no provision for “scrubbing,” or removal of said “scrubbed gas,” and a “centrifugal separator” with no provision for spinning anything. Again there are exit ports for “lighter gases” and “heavier gases” apparently by molecular intelligence, Satanic or Divine Intervention.

          I feel US Patents 2,943,419 and clone 3,099,898, are utter frauds and am shocked they were approved.

          In US Patent 4,133,671 by the Attorneys Fulwider, Patton, Richer, Rieber, Lee and Utecht, I found in the Abstract misspelling for “Diesel,” a surname, capitalization required. The error appears throughout this patent.  It is not a typo.  It is ignorance, stupidity or both.

In the abstract I found the colloquial, “so as to” twice and the comma missing in “treated, enriched water” where it would be important in a court case arguing concept definition.

          In section 1 of the patent, line 24, it says “certain areas” without identification or qualification, i.e. “Certain what or where?” 

In section 1, line 31 a “suitable irrigation network” is called for, but not defined anywhere in the document.  This is sloppy in a document where perfection is the standard with fees in five figures.  Attorneys are not paid for Gucci loafers, Armani suits and roller briefcases.  They are valued per product and this fails.

On line 34 the word “simulate” is substituted for “stimulate” in the most critical place ruining the document rendering it indefensible in court.

In line 48 “diesel” is again used and “of course” lies between two commas, but is meaningless; perhaps copied from a foreign document?

In line 54 we are told nitrogen is converted, “at least to some extent” where the fraction is critical thus putting into question the fertilizer claim, the backbone of the concept, nonetheless the patent was granted. 

In line 57 we are told the gases sought are “at least partially soluble in water or capable of being suspended in water…” with no references cited or properties validated anywhere in the document with regard to this critical issue. The real numbers in the literature and references are not supportive.

In line 60 we see, “Fortuitously” used idiomatically; not acceptable in a patent by your standards.

          In the “Summary of the Invention,” Section 2, line 6, we see, “Briefly, and in general terms,” and in line 12, “Basically,” bring us to an admonition, “No, we would like to see thoroughly and complete terms” as well as cut the “Basically” and define the disclosure.  This is a patent!  Again on line 14 we see “diesel,” by said committee of language challenged lawyers.

          On lines 35 and 36 we see “…beneficially lowers the pH of water used to irrigate and fertilize crops.”  Whether or not lowering the pH is beneficial depends on soil factors.  Lowering pH is harmful to acid soils.

          Page 6, lines 9 – 15, The applicant claims it is very easy to tap into natural gas sufficient to run an engine for pumping water for irrigation and the gas would be otherwise wasted.  Gas wells cost tens of thousands of Dollars and often contain impurities requiring expensive refining dealing with sulfur.  The author has a cavalier attitude with regard to the availability of natural gas, its’ cost and economics.  Again on line 55 we see “diesel.”

          Thus US Patent 4,133,671 by Fulwider, Patton, Richer, Rieber & Lee is invalid in my opinion.

          In US Patent 4,632,044 by Harrington Lackey, Esq. we found a most remarkable sentence page 2, lines 31-36:  “Maintenance of the heat in the gaseous mixtures is important in order to maintain many of the nutrient elements in their ionic form, so that they react more productively with the microorganisms in the soil to produce the nutrients utilized by the plants.”

To a chemist, chemical engineer or biologist this is shocking:  Very high temperatures are required to generate plasmas, the ionized state of matter. They have very low density; fall back to the elementary state on contact with solids as they have virtually no mass and little heat, but are toxic.  Were they to keep high temperatures and charges they would kill all living material on contact; not a desirable outcome.

          In page 3, line 47, we again see an uncapitalized “diesel” error.  Before a really cranky Germanic judge this could be fatal.

          In page 4, lines 57- 60, we see:  “The operator starts the tractor by igniting the engine and guiding the powered tractor over the field along the desired rows in which it is desired to introduce the nutrients.”  “Igniting the engine?”  Is that colloquial, idiomatic or just idiotic?  So much for Attorney Lackey in spite of his remarkably appropriate surname.

          In the claims section said Lackey peppers us with 40 “saids” when he apparently ran out of “the’s” in a document that should not have had so many errors, flaws and confusions given what Mr. Sebree J. Allen, Route 2, Kevil, Kentucky surely paid for it. 

          In our opinion US Patent 4,632,044 is invalidated by attorney errors.

          US Patent 4,675,165 by Ross & Dubno, Esq. has few mistakes, but it is from a foreign patent likely translated by a linguist perhaps unfamiliar with patent prose, but literate and proving a law degree is not required to edit a patent.

The error “re-afforesting,” page 1, line 48, is likely a literal German translation which is understandable in context, but an error that should not have eluded American lawyers.  Similarly, in page 3, line 11, said patent refers to “hobby gardeners” when “amateur” should have been used.  While it is understandable it is not standard English.  On line 14 of the same page we see, “In stallation” where “Installation” should be; a typographic error but unforgivable in a document for which five figures were likely charged. 

The most outstanding error is on page 4, lines 6 – 11, “Owing to the  arrangement, the gas chiefly present in the outer layers of the liquid first, is quickly added to the liquid by blending of all layers of the cross section of flow and is homogeneously distributed in the stream thus favoring the re-intake of gas in the subsequent impregnation stage.”  This could have been reduced to “the gases mix…” That such fluid flows are laminar is nonsense.

For what these people charge we can only suppose they must produce many words were few will do to give themselves opportunities to argue for days in court when a clear, simple statement would not have put so many windows and doors for infringers, but then what would lawyers have to do?

Again, in page 4, line 67, we see “hobby gardeners” where “amateurs” should be.  This patent may not be fatally flawed, but it is a poor example of lawyerly craft where it had a better-than-average chance to be perfect.

US Patent 5,044,117 by Herbert Dubno, Esq. is based on the concept there is an optimum ratio for carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in water. This is not found in the literature nor does the inventor offer experimental data.  While this may not invalidate the patent in the eyes of the USPTO it is untenable in peer reviewed journals or court.  We felt Attorney Dubno was careless.  And, he soundly confirmed it in body of the work:

In page 2, lines 7 – 10 we read, “It is essential in this case that the content of carbon dioxide in the water be considerably higher than normally found in the water coming from the supply system.”  Where CO2 is rarely found in wells this goes without saying.  The number of naturally carbonated springs, as in Perrier, France, is very small and the degree of carbonation is slight, certainly nothing like prepared “soda.” What is referred to as “natural pinpoint carbonation” is in fact under-carbonation.  If CO2 bubbles are very small in water it is because there is very little gas there to make them.

On page 2, line 28 we see, “In a good humus soil, up to 5 kg of carbon dioxide gas is produced per hectare and according to the Gay Lussac law, exchanged against proportional amounts of oxygen.”  This is science fraud.  Gay-Lussac defines the Kelvin temperature/pressure relationship in gases where Tk/p = K, a constant. “Tk” is degrees Kelvin and “p” is pressure in mm of mercury.  This has nothing to do with gas exchange. It is obviously not patent attorneys’ practice to have trained specialists review applications.  No chemist would let this pass.  It invalidates the entire patent.  It is a gross misrepresentation of the Gay-Lussac Law and a fraud thereby.

On page 2, line 48, we see the, “used-up” colloquialism which apparently is OK for an attorney, but not a lay person.

On page 2, lines 58 – 61, we see, “For instance, normally clean water at atmospheric pressure and at room temperature can absorb 0.88 l carbon dioxide gas, but only 0.03 l oxygen.”  However, the quantity of water into which the “0.88 l” or “0.03 l” is dissolved is not given.  If it is one liter then at what temperature?  The solubility of gases varies greatly and inversely with temperature as we have previously shown.

Gas solubility in water is zero for all gases at any temperature over 80 Celsius degrees.  According to Lange’s Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 7^th Edition, the solubility of CO2 in “cold water” is 1.713 liters of gas per liter of water.  “Cold water” is now 25 Celsius degrees or 77 Fahrenheit degrees where it was 0 Celsius degrees before labs were heated.  This work is unforgivably sloppy, inaccurate and misleading; certainly not worthy of a US Patent and it should be disqualified.

On page 3, lines 41 – 45, we see, “Further, it is essential that a constant mixing ratio between the gases be maintained, which corresponds to the natural proportion of these gases in clean water at room temperature.  This way it is avoided that one gas expells (sic) the other from the solution.”  In addition to a misspelled word, this sentence is nonsense.  Water used in irrigation has no CO2.  Wells have none and rain has very little as CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, 0.038%, and raindrops appear to have very little gas capture ability as rain analysis shows no CO2, but this may reflect trace testing difficulty more than actual concentration.  In an analysis of rain by “Treebox” at http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=25712 CO2 is not mentioned as a component of rain indicating in their analyses none was found.  Thus, the basic tenet of this patent, that there is a “natural ratio between CO2 and O2” is false and the patent should be rescinded.

US Patent 5,671,887, prepared by the inventor without the aid of an attorney has no errors, misspelled words or nonsensical content. It is perfect.

US Patent 5,682,709 by Paul T. Parker, Esq. on page 2, lines 55 – 58 says, “Pulses of carbon dioxide concentrations can be used to flood the crops with carbon dioxide, thereby displacing the oxygen next to the plants and suffocating unwanted insects.”  This is nonsense as molecules are not under intelligent control nor is there Satanic or Divine Intervention.  If cold CO2 displaces anything it displaces air that is 20% oxygen.  However, CO2 mixes with air and insects survive such mixtures as CO2 is not toxic.  It is hard to imagine an outdoor circumstance where CO2 could remain over any field without mixing and cause insects to do more than sneeze.

On page 3, lines 25 – 31 reads, “Attempts have also been made to irrigate plants with carbonated water.  The concept is that carbonated water would release carbon dioxide into the plants as the carbon dioxide escapes from the water.  These attempts, however, have proven deficient because such carbon dioxide has a low density and merely rises in the ambient air.” 

Obviously, the inventor did not try it as plants do very well on carbonated water.  We have done it and it works, but water is not a good delivery medium for CO2 as it is only 0.2% efficient in terms of delivery. And, using carbonated water to support growth multiplies the amount of water required in agriculture by a factor of 2 billion if all CO2 is to come from aqueous solutions.   Agricultural water is already 70% of all water. Using water to deliver CO2 could not be met with all the available water.

Page 5, lines 29 - 33 we see, “The method may also include the further steps of encapsulating the carbon dioxide after it has been captured, and hauling the encapsulated carbon dioxide to an underground void,” is a meaningless sentence as “encapsulating” is not here defined.  Inasmuch as capsules are defined as small containers this needs explanation.

Page 5, lines 41 – 44, “In order to prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, the method of the invention involves capturing the carbon dioxide after it has been produced.”  This is nonsense.

Page 6, lines 29 – 32, “Carbon dioxide may also be collected from composting areas by covering the composting areas and pumping oxygen into the enclosure, thereby expelling the carbon dioxide.”  This is nonsense and again calls for molecular intelligent control, tiny pilots, Satan or God.  The gases would mix as they do making air, therefore this is a fatal flaw in said patent where the entire concept is predicated on a false idea.

Page 7, lines 51 – 54, “Therefore, by increasing the density of the carbon dioxide before it is delivered to the plant, the carbon dioxide stays in close proximity to the plants during the photosynthesis process.”  Where photosynthesis takes place only in sunlight and CO2 absorbs infrared from sunlight it will heat, expand and escape.  It is this capability and behavior on which the anthropogenic “global warming” hypothesis is predicated.

 The same error is repeated on page 7 in lines 64 – 67 when Paul T. Parker, Esq. writes, “By reducing the temperature of the carbon dioxide the density of the carbon dioxide will be increased sufficiently to permit the carbon dioxide to stay in close proximity to the plants until it can be absorbed by the plants.”  Again, more molecules with tiny pilots, Satan or God, maybe for attorney Spider Man, but not for us.

On page 8, line 2 we see the word “densified.”  This is not defined in any reference and highlighted by every spell-checker.  It is required that a patent stay within the bounds of our technology and language, therefore no “perpetual motion machines” or “molecules under intelligent control,”  “Satanic or Divine Intervention.”

On page 8, line 36, we see, “right-of-ways” and are sure he means “rights of way,” a curious error for a Doctor of Law.

On page 9, line 12 the word “densified” is again used and it appears in line 17 and 19 thus we conclude Attorney Parker is at least consistent in his linguistic intransigence there making our challenge an easy case against a comic book super-hero Attorney in disguise.

The disclosure is clean until on page 10, line 41 we see, “It will be appreciated that carbon dioxide may be delivered at other temperatures, and in fact, the cooling effect of the cooled carbon dioxide may keep the temperature next to the plants between 70°-80° F. even though the ambient temperature is higher, such as 90° F or more.”

Are we to believe even if carbon dioxide had been delivered as liquid or solid at -78 Celsius degrees, warmed to a gas then put in an underground “void” there being “densified” would thus become a magical substance that does not mix with air or absorb infrared radiation per physics, but seek and remain by green plants waiting to be absorbed in photosynthesis?  This is a fable penned by a patent attorney who only omitted the Wicked Witch of the North.  This piece should be entitled, “Fables in Physics and Chemistry by Paul T. Parker, Esq.”

Additional errors of substance appear on page 11, lines 7 - 16, regarding sewage for which said P. T. Parker, JD, seems to have special feeling, reaching a crescendo in lines 28 – 30, climaxing in lines 39 – 42 where he loads sewage onto a tanker ship and sails into the sunset.  This is virtually symphonic and worthy of a 1950’s MovieTone travelogue.

In a final note regarding US Patent 5,682,709 we note that in Claim 3, page 13, lines 30 - 31 “encapsulating is defined as, “encapsulating step comprises putting the carbon dioxide into a tanker rail car,” and so the mystery is resolved in what has been a patent attorney’s “tour de force.”

US Patent 6,241,163 was prepared by inventor Artie J. Brenner, Chamblee, GA and is without flaws.  No attorney touched it.

US Patent 6,447,437 demonstrates that a committee can generate more bizarre errors than a lone lawman.  The firm of Ackerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, PA invented a compound for which there is no reference, name or data, “(NH2)2CO.”  The equations would not balance without said fantasy compound, but its’ incorporation utterly invalidates the patent two ways:

The fantasy compound, (NH2)2CO appears prominently in all figures on pages 2, 4, 7 and 10.  The patent also notes, “large quantities of cost-free CO2 available,” but we have been unable to find any such sources. 

Where the objective of this patent is to substitute carbonate for nitrate to reduce pollution of streams the chemistry could be straight-forward, but here it is not.  We can only speculate the inventor and/or attorneys are trying to skirt an existing patent.  This should have been obvious to said Examiner.

Another notable error in this patent is seen on page 6, lines 27 – 29 where we read, “Water can physically hold a maximum of about 40 mM of aqueous CO2 at ambient temperature and pressure before a gas phase of CO2 is formed.”  No water volume is given, but we assume it to be one milliliter where the “mM,” micromole unit, is used.  According to the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics the quantity is 7.6 X 10^-5 or 0.000076 moles/ml or mM, micromole, an error greater than 500,000:1!  This alone should kill the patent.

On page 7, lines 1 – 6, we see, “The reason that soils commonly have much higher retaining affinity for positively charged ions such as NH4+ than for negatively charged species such as HCO3¯ is that soil particles carry mostly negative surface charges, which attract positively charged ions but repel negatively charged species.”  Utter nonsense:  The “ground” is neutral with respect to charge in fact and convention.  With no citation this is fatal. 

Approaching charged particles impresses a small, temporary opposite charge on a molecule by displacing “S” electrons as they are free to move on atoms, per quantum mechanics, rending said atoms polar expressing Van der Waals forces.  These are not full, complete or permanent charges and resolve when molecules contact.  This is the mechanism of weak bonding forces and yet another fine example of why attorneys should not write technical patents.  Nonetheless, this process could be reduced to a “Turbo-Tax” type expert system and eliminate error-prone attorneys.

Page 7, lines 44 – 47, we read, “Consequently, it is possible to use this invention, CO2 solidifying fertilizer production and its product application with soil-groundwater-mediated sequestration of CO2, for at least 100 years.”  There is no way this statement can be validated.  It is not supported by the literature.  Carbonates put in soil stay a millisecond, minute, month, millennium or an eon; no one knows which.  There are too many variables.

Page 7, line 63, includes the fantasy compound, “(NH2)2CO.”

Page 8, lines 9 – 16, “Since nitrogen fertilizer generally allows photosynthetic organisms to synthesize more “green machines” (photosynthetic reaction centers and enzymes), supplying NH4HCO3 and (NH2)2CO to crops not only sends the solidified CO2 into the field, where it is supposed to be, but also “catalyzes” plant photosynthesis to fix many additional molecules of CO2 from the atmosphere.”  Small amounts of nitrogen are involved in photosynthesis, but by far most is used to make proteins for the lignous material holding cells together or DNA.  This is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Page 8, lines 12 – 16, “Production of one molecule of NH4HCO3 requires only 3/8 molecule of CH4.  Therefore, input of one CH4 molecule through the use of this invention could result in sequestration of approxi-mately 62 molecules of CO2 by photosynthesis biomass production.”  This is nonsense:  Chemistry does not work with odd fractions of molecules.  Atoms are the smallest units of elements.  Molecules do not have odd fractions.  CH4 is ¾ carbon and ¼ hydrogen by mass or 1/5^th carbon and 4/5^th hydrogen by number.  The fraction “3/8” has no place in any discussion of methane, CH4, and how a part of one molecule could command 62 molecules is more Satanic or Divine Intervention.

Page 8, line 36 again includes mythical compound “(NH2)2CO)” but this time with an extra bracket making it chemically ridiculous and worthy of an “F” in a junior high school general science test much less a patent.

Page 10 is replete with the mythical compound which we would call “ammoniacal carbonone” in anticipation of the International Union of Pure and Applied chemists nomenclature committee should this compound ever be synthesized.  In addition Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson have seen fit to declare this mythical compound insoluble for more false claims.  Declaring physical attributes for this compound constitutes fraud as it is one thing to make a mistake in a formula, but quite another to then claim properties for it.

This patent is from Hell and should be voided.

US Patent 7,055,325 by the firm of Thompson, Thompson & Thompson is clean until we get to page 4, lines 53 – 61 when we read: “The filtered gases then pass through an optional centrifugal separator that splits the NO (nitrogen oxide) from the CO2 and any water vapor (H2O) that may still be present along with minor amounts of NO2, SO2, and other possibly volatilized trace minerals.  The energy released from the centrifugal separ-ator can be utilized in a refrigerant working fluid system to power a second turbine to create electricity.  An example of such a system is described in US Patent No. 5,146,755.”

Having not heard of a centrifugal separator for low molecular weight gases, nor any such machine producing usable energy I read No. 5,146,755 anxiously to see said machine was cited as “optional” and not described in that patent, but it was referred as being in patents 4,711,093, 3,978,663 and 2,955,917.  None of these three contained any such apparatus.  Searches for “centrifugal” and substrings, “cent” and “fug,” came up empty.  While there are other faults in the patent we would question, this is a misrepresentation and overlooked by examiner Hoang Nguyen.

Conclusions

          I have carefully examined the ten patents with concepts most like my own to find two prepared by inventors are flawless while a third fraudulent.  The seven prepared by attorneys have many flaws, some fraudulent, with all fatally rendered in my opinion. 

Whether or not intentional deceptions were done I cannot conclude in six cases, but it seems obvious in US Patent 7,055,325 a clear deception was perpetrated.  Given the exorbitant fees charged by attorneys we wonder why they are not required to employ experts to review submissions and why are USPTO Examiners are not prepared to see basic science frauds?    Under valid protocols we would have had to deal with 80% less patents, not suffer insults and have respect for the process.

          I feel the bias against direct inventor submission is clear in your letter. 

I conclude the US Patent Office is now a full employment bureau for patent attorneys and incompetent Examiners.  The Examiners pass defective patents that land in courts if used and given excessively layered language will need many days in trial to generate enormous fees for losing cases. The only saving grace is that only 0.07% come to life, one of 1300.

          I conclude the US Patent Office is a cause of secrecy in technology that is destructive of science, the discipline that has given us the modern world.  If this continues we will enter a Dark Age as secrecy will destroy science and our society just as Islam did in the 11^th century when it crushed Moorish science that was then 1,000 years ahead of that in Europe.

          I conclude it is in the national interest to overhaul the US Patent Office to make it objective as it clearly is not today.  Patent submission could be and should be reduced to an expert system for the people and the advancement of science and technology.

          In this work I have tried to make a contribution to our economy as I sincerely believe the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is false and not supported by the physics.  Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in air and responsible for only 0.07% of all atmospheric heating as water vapor is responsible for 99.93%, but control and taxing carbon will give the elected class more power than anything since the signing of the Magna Carta, so it will happen.  Without something like SCAF America will fail by losing most of its’ energy.  Alternative energy is long coming, very expensive and presently unreliable.

It was my objective to turn a huge negative for America into a great  positive.  My ideas will turn a million acres of waste land into seas of grain  feeding the world.  The greatest weapons for peace are food and free trade. 

SCAF will free most of the water now used in agriculture, which is 70% of all water.  This triples water supplies to support 300% more people without drilling another well or drawing another lake.

          I urge you to approve this patent as soon as possible in the name of national security.  It is the best work of my long life in science and writing.

Sincerely,

Adrian Vance

Copies to:  Mr. J. A. Lorengo, USPTO, The Honorable Michael Thompson, Member of Congress, First District, California, The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Chairman House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Bert Gordon, Chair House Committee on Science & Technology, Secretary of Commerce, The Honorable Gary Locke

          My strategy was to take enough time and prepare a good case as one was clearly possible given all their mistakes.  I was shocked to see how deep it was.  Not only had they made careless accusations, i.e. the “foreign patent,” but they cited a flawed patent that anyone with a smattering of high school or college chemistry should realize should never have been granted.  Then they capped their performance by finding me at fault for not using the word “step” when 80% of all granted patents do not have it and it is one of the few words for which there is no synonym! 

          With respect to tactics, I sent copies to officials in charge of and responsible for the US Patent Office, The Department of Commerce and Members of Congress of chairing applicable committees.  Finally, I sent a copy to my own Congressman.  Of course none of these officials lifted a finger, but it never hurts to try.

          To date, March 2010, the application is in limbo, apparently having become a patent pending in perpetuity.  We have omitted the claims in this document to preserve and empower our position.

          We feel this technology will come to life at some point and these events have insured that my widow, or heirs, will be able to capitalize on it as we have an officially documented a prior claim in the US Patent Office.  It cannot get much better than that as the lady I have in mind for my next wife is very sharp, has an MBA and can prosecute this case.

          In addition to this book we have 600 pages of documents and letters proving our contentions and including our claims.  They exist in perpetuity within the patent office, but where they were controversial at the time of filing and will prove an embarrassment when revealed we feel our originals are important if not the key to successfully prosecuting this case as the USPTO will destroy them if they think they can get away with it.

          I have no doubt that what I have discovered and put to work in this invention will be rediscovered and implemented in much the same way either by an engineering committee at a major agriculture equipment maker or in an academic institution.  Certainly, I would like to have credit for the discovery, even posthumously, but am more interested in seeing the concept come to life and serve man by turning carbon into gold.

Adrian Vance

Table of Contents