Mr. Joseph Matal
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
USPTO Conspiracy on REINVENTION
SCIENCE vs. The Law
Lawyers are not allowed to write PhD Thesis, Scientific Publications, and Patents.
Dear Mr. Matal,
You completed your undergraduate studies of public studies and English at Stanford University in 1993. You obtained your J.D. doctor of law degree in 1996 from the University of California Berkeley School of Law. I got Ph.D. in Soil Science at the Pennsylvania State University when Bill Clinton released his first speech for reelection at my graduation on May 10, 1996. While attending the discipline of Hydrogeology Fall92 with Professor Richard Parizek in Geosciences I recall seeing no single Law student as peer among around 120 students in my classroom.
I believe that Lawyers take care of The Laws while scientists take care of SCIENCE.
Inventions are indeed changing the way humans strive over the landscape. Last year seeking old friends by the interned I bumped to a former girlfriend after three decades discovering a 31-year-old daughter that I never imagined I had. She was born in 1985 the year that DNA paternity test was invented, which started being used in Courtrooms in Brazil by 1993 when internet became available to the public. By the internet. I found her in less than two weeks just at her birthday because it was revealed her first and second name and later her birth date. I had no pictures, no birth or living locations. She was abducted three months before feeling the first lights in her eyes, as people took advantages of a vulnerable pregnant young woman. Easily I collected her pictures around and ran a spatial analysis diagnosing her features to be sure that our phenotype had common chemical grounds in the genetic codes. I am glad to find my first-born child; even I had two babies during my PhD in the US making then four children of my family.
Inventions and technology also change the way we can handle human affairs. Even Alfred Nobel who became wealthy developing WMD helping rogue governments to improve warfare and put price on science lost his younger brother during an explosion in Stockholm experimenting nitroglycerin. By chance, his name was Emil while my youngest daughter is called Emily. I had three children and using invention resources now I have four. For sure, those renowned scientists getting Nobel Prizes do not care that the money comes from the Father of Dynamite! Who cares if Nobel Prizes are not that so noble? It seems that Hydrology, the science of life, is a blessing and rewarding endeavor. By the way, Mr. Nobel left no heirs.
Inventions are so important to humankind. Bill Clinton said on my commencement that down the line we would be inventing new technologies never imagined before, because our graduation was the event to seal the outcome for receiving the highest education that America can provide to their citizens. I am creating a new science I called Hydrotechnology associated to a breakthrough I bumped during my high education in the US.
I have an invention sturdy enough to create a new science setting foot as an issued patent granted by USPTO. My first patent US 6,766,817 was so easily issued because I employed technical terminology from my Ph. D. in Soil Science that was absent more than a century into the fluidic devices of the patenting system. The insight is that Hydrology has been neglected by the patenting system. It takes place because Geologists/Soil Scientists working with natural porosities do not develop fluidic devices. People that try to develop fluidic devices handling artificial porosities just ignore an ancient science called Hydrology bearing plenty of knowledge of fluid dynamics on natural porosities. Today, by tracking thermal conductivity on devices in the patenting system, it is mentioned in 118,634 issued patents; electrical conductivity is mentioned in 92,783 issued patents while hydraulic conductivity of fluid moving on porosities is mentioned in only 893 issued patents. This is taking place because lay people skirting common knowledge address it as wick/wicking, which is mentioned in 38,622 issued patents. Hydrology, Hydrogeology, and Soil Physics address the movement of fluids on porous systems, above the water table reference, as unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, which is portrayed in only 30 issued patents.
Henry Darcy proposed Darcy’s Law in 1856 about Hydraulic Conductivity and afterwards in 1907 Edgard Buckingham proposed a change in the equation to Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow (Soil Physics, Jury et al., 1991, John Wiley). It has been observed that many inventors employing the terminology ‘wick/wicking’ neither understand the functioning of oil lamps nor Hydrogeology, concerning the functioning of Hydraulic Zones. They come up with scientific flaws as wicks only have negative hydraulic flow (unsaturated). Wick is a porous flexible structure that moves fuel to the flame by Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow and it needs to resist to high temperatures. It is a basic Etymological mistake to call anything as a wick that fails as a wick on oil lamps. Also, wicks could not be used as a draining porosity as it never worked in the bottom of oil lamps draining fluids by Saturated Flow. The hydrological functioning is so different as the fuel rises upward through wick porosity to the flame by Unsaturated Flow leaving the system as gases after combustion. In the self-watering flowerpots, water leaves continuously the soil-water-plant system by evapotranspiration. In the African Violets prototypes, the loss rate is about 1 ml/h, and the maximum gauged transmittance upward in the porosity interface was 2.18 mm/s.
Mr. Matal, the outcome of my scientific breakthrough endeavors is so depressing to human affairs.
The fundament is quite simple to derive: dishonest Lawyers are stepping over the boundaries of science.
Why USPTO is issuing patents that even the inventor cannot understand the document of the IP rights granted?
What is the magic behind such outcome?
Is it tenable to an inventor to have IP protection issued by a document from USPTO that he is not able to comprehend the content protecting his invention? The inventor is able to invent something but he is incapable to comprehend the document protecting his creation. It does betray simple Logics!
A patent lawyer wrote his invention into a patent, which was issued by a patent examiner from USPTO. The final issued document approved is not comprehensible by the inventor who got his Ph. D. at the Harvard University.
This patent is a very high technical document dealing with the boundaries of Hydrogeology.
Please, tell me, how much Hydrogeology is Law School teaching in the US?
Mr. Matal, how much Hydrogeology you learned at the University of California Berkeley School of Law J.D. getting a doctor of law degree in 1996?
If a Ph. D. scientist has no need of a Lawyer to write his thesis or his scientific publications, why a Lawyer can write his patent changing it to something he cannot even comprehend? Let me remind you that Lawyers handle Laws of man while scientists handle Laws of Nature. I am confident that the US Supreme Court will not be meddling with Gravity Laws! Hydraulic Conductivity depicted by Darcy’s Law is not written in the US constitution!
Mr. Matal, this inventor, Dr. Abraham Duncan Stroock is Associate Professor at Cornell University, Dept. Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. He got:
- Ph.D., Harvard University, Chemical Physic (2002),
- M.S., University Paris VI and XI,Solid State Physics (1997),
- B.A. Cornell University, Physics (1995).
De: Abraham Duncan Stroock [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de abril de 2014 22:20
Para: Elson Silva, PhD
Para: Elson Silva, PhD
Assunto: RE:  Protecting Hydrology Science from REINVENTION by corrupt LAY PEOPLE colluding with USPTO - US Pat 8,701,469
Dear Dr. Silva,
‘... If you have a point to make about my treatment of hydrological concepts, I ask that you take the time to explain your specific points of disagreement. I note that my work is better represented in my publications (available at http://www.stroockgroup.org/home/publications) than in patents, as the lawyers have been translated the latter into legalese that I do not understand.’
Just imagine if Albert Einstein or Antoine Lavoisier had patented their scientific achievements getting issued patents which they were unable to understand their content.
Is there any special legalese approach or magic that transform science to Law making it inaccessible to scientists?
If so, what is the legalese of ‘The Law of Conservation of Mass’ from Antoine Lavoisier considered the Father of Modern Chemistry?
What is the legalese of general theory of relativity of Albert Einstein?
Perhaps, Harvard is just releasing dumb Ph.Ds, or USPTO has the magic power to screw SCIENCE!
I believe that USPTO was supposed to be led by a scientist that have background on Philosophy of Science understanding clearly the boundaries of knowledge by Epistemology (What can I know, and how do I know that I know it?), the limits of existence by Metaphysics (What exists is the universe?), and Logics (What is the best way to set up my mind in order to make it as clear as possible?) by the Philosophy of Science. It hurts common sense when science is raped so neglectfully with flaws, reinventions, and shameful disrespect to inventors; mainly by people not that blessed on their intellectual resources! Intelligent people are endowed with sharper boundaries between right and wrong! The functioning of science is approved by Nature.
As, there is no technical and scientific teaching in Law Schools, Lawyers cannot write or examine patents!
Inventions are indeed changing the way we live over the landscape. Using internet from Brazil I was able to join two American patent attorneys and open a company in the US and file patents (I wrote my own patents, FYI). My scientific breakthrough as an issued patent that cancels around 50 thousand issued patents for neglecting common background from Hydrogeology. I told my partners that it was being shamefully violated by flawed ones. They advised me sending my issued patent US 6,766,817 suggesting citation so my IP right could be considered. I sent one letter, tens, hundreds and by internet easily thousands of messages demanding respect for Science and the Law. My partners were threatened and asked me stop because they said in the US small parties have no chance against big bully corporations and biased government institutions even to support a scientific breakthrough. You all are out of your minds, as Hydrology from Libraries will prevail because common knowledge is just what is supposed to be. They quit the project arguing that in the US, small parties have no chance facing huge bully parties, even to support a scientific breakthrough!
Easily I grabbed nearly all seven thousand patent examiners emails just putting their first name, dot, last name and @uspto.gov (Joseph.Matal@uspto.gov). Most corporation also have standard emails on their employees allowing easy deduction of their emails making everybody in the internet easily accessible by this simple scientific deduction. The email system must confirm misspelled emails and accepted ones so the operation is confirmed. Inventors are not dumb people. When I started writing a patent, it was taking three weeks requesting a paper copy of a patent. Today, it takes seconds to download a patent and run a text search, few strikes on my keyboard to reach inventors, patent attorneys, examiners, and a few more to grab hundreds or thousands of people emails associated to a wicked violation of The Law and science, and then list them all in my blogs. Scientists easily can read nature secrets as well as human pretension of handling their duties.
Your message was successfully delivered to the destination(s) listed below. If the message was delivered to mailbox you will receive no further notifications. Otherwise you may still receive notifications of mail delivery errors from other systems.
The mail system
<Joseph.Matal@uspto.gov>: delivery via smtpedge2.uspto.gov[220.127.116.11]:25: 250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 2D88F2DF2B05, Sun, 9 Jul 2017 13:40:45 -0300 (BRT) X-UOL-SMTP: SMTPS587
Mr. Matal, I put 120,000 emails of all people from Cornel University on my blogs demanding them respect for science and the Law. The same happened to MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Univ. of Connecticut, Penn State, NYSU, Wisconsin, Univ. of California, Washington Univ., etc.
Corporations are reinventing my patent with flawed ones in collusion with USPTO like Roche Diagnostics, Carefusion Inc., Illumina, Inc, Meditronics, Johnson Controls Technology Co., Celanese Acetate, LLC, Albany International Corp., Honeywell International, Inc., Eidon, LLC, Battelle Memorial Institute, etc. The good side is that my proposed upgrade Tubarc to replace capillarity is very tenable, but they prefer to steal it shamefully than to respect and reward the inventor. Since Bill Clinton was doing sex in his office with Monica Lewinsky, Penn State University was letting young boys being raped in the locker rooms by Jerry Sandusky, USPTO raping science is just a follow-up showing USA continuous degradation. The truth is that Hydrology is not going to change from Libraries and there is no other option to develop fluidic devices employing common knowledge of fluid dynamics on porosity from the Libraries. This dilemma will be solved down the line, sooner or later, as science is very sturdy and prevailing.
My Demand to USPTO
It is not that hard to argue at the Court of the Law that Hydrological issues should be examined by Hydrologists.
My demand to USPTO is the same as the first letter sent on Oct. 2006:
1. Hire Examiners with background in Hydrogeology and/or Soil Physics so that they have full comprehension of fluids moving on porosity;
2. Cancel issued patents with scientific flaws. Obsolete patents are cancelled naturally by becoming outdated;
3. Make a public statement about Hydrology negligence hurting all Hydrological community as well as my project that needs experts in Hydrology to protect the content of my issued claims.
4. Compensate for my losses since as an inventor filing patents I was not expecting lay people handling hydrology in the examination process by USPTO.
5. Since USPTO is failing to protect my IP rights my patents should be eligible for time extension of their expiration dates (new demand).
6. Issue a bill requiring Hydrology be handled by Hydrologists preventing laypeople from harming standing common knowledge in the scientific literature (new demand).
7. Disclose the technical and educational background of the Patent Examiners showing their expertise boundaries for judgment (new demand).
8. Make people accountable for breaking THE LAW regarding my complaints (old demand).
As a scientist paying attention to human affairs, I developed this theory that corruption bears the dynamic principles like an ongoing pregnancy. The phenomenon bears a sort of exponential curvilinear growing rate variable until it reaches the threshold, as in the due date. It means that the bribe expands by the amount of benefit and the number of cohorts trespassing common sense. I believe that honesty is the best cure for government corruption. Brazil is a good source of insights on how fast corruption can grow and how the threshold is achieved making even our president the leader of this embarrassing trend to challenge human intelligence.
Sooner or later the patenting system will start respecting common knowledge, stop reinvention with flawed patents, stop raping science, stop multiple patent applications as a simple invention can take place just once. It will show the technical background of examiners so society have some idea about their due expertise to judge something they have appropriate skills. Allowing multiple applications to grab more fees and hide examiners background is just a pretension underestimating inventor’s acumen.
So, you can start fixing it right now or let it get worse reaching faster the threshold for a new dawn for a prevailing honesty.
My insights say there is an ongoing inverse trend between Knowledge vs. Power. The highest the power in the chain more deprived of knowledge the recipient is endowed, showing less and less brain resources for the required duties. I do not know if I get thrilled for being so correct on my perception, or I had bumped to an outlier capable of delivering the expected outcome.
Please, keep in mind that inventors are not dull!
Campinas, Brazil, July 5, 2017
Tubarc Technologies, LLC
Av. Dr. Júlio Soares de Arruda, 838 Parque São Quirino
CEP 13088-300 -
- SP - Campinas Brazil
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
USPTO assigns lay examiners to judge issues they have no understanding. Arlen Soderquist a Patent Examiner claiming to be a Chemist scientist from Utah is confident that he can examine Hydrology even having no background about this old classical science. I am curious on how much Hydrology the Department of Chemistry of University of Utah provides to their students. This is the way Dr. Soderquist sees Hydrology; very funny and so different from the scientific literature and basic textbooks of Hydrology so plenty on libraries. He does not know that gravity exists affecting the Hydraulic Gradient Potential. The Saturated Zone is the bottom (fluid fuel) and the Unsaturated Zone is on the top as the fluid moves upward to the flame (wick). My deceased father a coffee farmer with two years of schooling knew about it as we used many oil lamps. He knew that the flame was on the top and the fuel deposit was in the bottom, and that the fuel would move upward as we had to refill it once in a while!
On Sep. 16, 2007 I sent a letter to Ecolab, Inc. advising them that their patent application 20070212281 (Sep. 13, 2007) was violating mine US 6,766,817 (Jul. 25, 2001), and that it had a scientific flaw failing to deliver fluid. I got no answer, but I also sent a letter to USPTO notifying about this blatant flaw and violations. In the Fig. 1 water only drips if the porous device crosses the water table reference downward from the Unsaturated to the Saturated Hydraulic Zone. I got a reply from a USPTO Lawyer saying that there was a provision Law allowing the size of the drawings be different from the real final products. I replied saying that my technical schooling at High School taught that parallel lines never meet each other at any scale employed. My initial assumption was that the background of USPTO patent examiners could be lower than High School standards. My surprise was that this patent application was issued afterwards on Oct. 23, 2007 (US 7,285,255). So, to make it appalling, it was filed again on Jan. 24, 2008 (US 20080019865) and issued again on Mar. 2, 2010 (US 7,670,551).
Why would somebody want to file patents claiming an invention that is flawed, fails, and was already precisely invented grounded by advanced scientific background?
I was expecting that the academic environment would be different as faculties usually are PhD and highly committed to honor, respect, ethics, always complying with the Law. Universities have libraries and access to common knowledge preached on text books and classrooms. But, Dr. Amir Faghri and Dr. Zhen Guo working at the former Fuel Cell Center at the University of Connecticut believed that Hydrology from their Library could be ignored as well as my patent rights at USPTO when issuing US 7,625,649 ‘Vapor feed fuel cells with a passive thermal-fluids management system’. It was sent many letters requesting IDS of US 6,766,817 to many faculties and IP management team at Univ. of
Connecticut. Nobody there felt any urge to respect neither Classical Hydrology nor the Law on already issued patents on the subject. Looking at the drawings it looks like it was a straight lousy copycat by a PhD faculty showing arrogance and how stupid he can be by ignoring a ‘scientific breakthrough’. I have no idea why faculties want to work with fluid ignoring an old and classic science Hydrology. Dr. Zhen Guo got his PhD at Florida International University in Mechanical Engineering working with fuel cells filing a patent (20060046123) with his advisor Dr. Yiding Cao showing that they had no idea about fluid dynamics between Hydraulic Zones. At least they abandoned such flawed patent application!
Why would any scientist work with microfluid Ignoring Hydrology textbooks? Dr. never studied Hydrology in her full life and had no single Hydrology reference to show that she did her homework on background requirements. : Ph.D. in Physics & Mathematics from A.F.Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute St. Petersburg, Russia, 1980, M.S. (with honors) in Semiconductor Physics, Saratov State University, Russia, 1973. ( Method and device for manipulating liquids in microfluidic systems. Dr. Gorfinkel invented Tubarc again neither knowing Hydrology with any citation nor US 6,766,817.
Carnegie Mellon University ignores Advanced Hydrology, the Law, Ethics, and Honesty. Complex Engineering on hydrodynamics is confused on geometries between squares and circles! ‘Dr. Fedder, PhD, is proposing a squared geometry in order to control fluid dynamics employing ‘Capillary Action’, which comes from the cylindrical structure conception – capillary’. How much brain power is required to realize that ‘capillary action’ is a cylindrical geometric conception to capture unsaturated hydraulic flow when the solid surface of porosity pulls fluids upward against gravity having a suction or negative hydraulic flow? Frankly speaking can any capillary be squared? It seems that Nature opted for rounded geometries since the beginning making the sun, earth, cells, veins, trunks, etc, all rounded and rounded. Dr. Fedder empty skull is also rounded!
Now Carnegie Mellow is just raping science and shamefully cheating on Academic Affairs in collusion with USPTO shameful reinvention policy. Dr. Gary K. Fedder the Director of the Institute for Complex Engineered Systems (ICES) got B.S. and M.S. from MIT in 1982 and 1984, obtaining in 1994 PhD at the University of California at Berkeley. I had to carry out more than 3,000 experiments till 2001 when I was ready to file my American patent which was then published in 2003, and issued on 2004. Dr. Fedder filed his lazy patent in 2006 and requested Nonpublication option to keep it a secret till 2013 (8,501,117) waiting 7 years expecting my project to vanish.
University of California, Princeton University, and many others are trying to address fluidic devices by ignoring Hydrology Science as well as issued patents like US 6,766,817.
My recent conclusion is that lay people behind wick/wicking neither understand HYDROLOGY nor the functioning of oil lamps!
To be honest I have no idea why this flawed patent (US 9,308,490) is citing mine (US pat 6,766,817) since I provided the core Hydrological background for lay people to improve their comprehension on this issue of hydrodynamics regarding fluid movement on porosity systems. It seems that lay people behind wick/wicking neither understand Hydrology nor the functioning of oil lamps. Wicks connect the fuel in the liquid compartment to the flame on the top moving the fluid upward as Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow. Wicks can never be set in the bottom of an oil lamp for drainage as it becomes Saturate Flow. I am curious if my issued patent was read by any of them, inventors, patent attorneys, and examiners; or even if any of them has any hydrological background.
US pat 6,766,817 (BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION - 3rd paragraph) - 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.
What is the point of ignoring common knowledge and issued patents?
It does not make sense unless they are aliens from another dimension bearing a different Logical system in their minds different from commonplace on earth! They cannot be stupid because they must have had some educational background that missed principles of simple honesty and fairness.
‘Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow’ from Edgar Buckingham (1907) updating Henry Darcy (1856) is mentioned by 6,766,817in the American patenting system for the first time, deploying Hydrogeology/Soil Physics to the fluidic devices developing artificial porosity conceptions for Hydrodynamics.
Academic and Corporate Pillage on Hydrology Science
Roche - Understanding Terror inside US Government I US Pat. 9,063,038 June 23, 2015
CareFusion Corporation - Assaulting a ‘Scientific Breakthrough’ US Pat. 9,067,036 June 30, 2015