In reference to the patent: US3951134

The patent claims in simplest terms that by broadcasting two radio signals into the brain, that the brain's own radio signals can be modulated onto the combined signals and then picked up by receivers for processing, analysis, and other actions. If any radio signal can be modulated by another radio signal, then all radio signals are modulated by all radio signals (untrue). The patent makes no mention of this, and fails to provide a means to detect and filter out all other radio signals other than the brain's which would additionally be present, and neither does it specify that the process must be conducted within a faraday cage in order to isolate the process from all other ambient radio signals. In point of fact, radio signals do not modulate one another; the process as described is nonsense. Modulation is achieved by directly embedding a signal through electronic circuitry prior to broadcast, as in AM/FM radio (AM means Amplitude Modulation, FM means Frequency Modulation), and decoded in like means by radio receivers. Were this patent true and workable, AM/FM radio would be incapable of producing useful sound.

  • This is probably the funniest patent I've read so far. I just lost it at "broadcasting two radio signals into the brain" 😂 Mar 8, 2020 at 4:03
  • There is a second part to this technology. Nanotechnology allows a catch for the invading frequencies. An electromagnetic wave has three parts its amplitude, frequency and energy. simply turning up the energy overpowers the normal brain function using mm-wave technology. The synthetic magnetic nanoparticles stick to the cells of the body and are so small they pass the blood-brain barrier. Mar 7, 2021 at 22:04

2 Answers 2


There is no burden on the inventors to prove their invention actually works. This patent is a good example of a useless patent. The examiner is just looking for novelty and apparent utility. In any case these types of patents aren't usually all that problematic since no one would want to infringe them. Much worse in my opinion are overly broad patents. Lastly, this patent has expired so if someone wanted to waste their time in this technology, they are free to do so.

  • Let's not forget that, had it been formulated only slightly different, this patent would encompass fMRI. The components are all there, base waves, modulated waves, responses .. if they had generalized a little more this would be the kind of patent a troll would love to have. Other than that, I agree, with both of you, this patent is non functional, but I had to read it a few times to even get what they mean and the examiner might have given them the benefit of the doud, after all, this was 1974/76.
    – user18033
    May 31, 2017 at 16:38
  • @DonQuiKong I agree and edited my answer slightly.
    – Eric S
    May 31, 2017 at 16:40
  • Great answer! One of the aspects of patent law that surprised me the most was that the functionality of the process is not a determinant.
    – DukeZhou
    Jun 30, 2017 at 19:09
  • One downside with an unworkable patent is that issued U.S. patents are presumed to be enabled when cited as prior art. I had a client with an application that involved, as part of the process, using sounds to rouse a patient to a more wakeful state. An issued patent was cited that asserted a method to use selected sounds to move a patent from any given sleep state directly to any other specified sleep state. Highly likely beyond the state of the art at the time of filing or even now. I counseled that he needed an affidavit from an expert. I think it would have worked if he took my advice.
    – George White
    Mar 8, 2021 at 0:12

Regardless whether patent law requires a working device, the technical objection above was focused on the two incoming waves themselves. Quite correct that they would never modulate each other [superposition]. But the patent never claims that the two input EM frequencies modulate one another. Instead, the inference is that the nonlinearities or change in refractive index, in the mass of the target are where the waves are crudely "mixed" and small heterodyne products are formed. My question would be 'How close must the "receiver" be to the target [the brain] to pick up these ultra-weak heterodyne signals coming from the brain?' Also, how much weaker would the "modulations" be, that the brain allegedly impresses on the heterodyne products? All sounds pretty unlikely until you do some reading about MRI technology, as was pointed out. Who 'da thunk that you could send RF pulses into living tissue within a magnetic field, turn the pulse off, and receive the gyroscopic recoil of the atoms as a very weak RF signal that could be amplified and reassembled into a detailed image of the brain? Science Fiction! And yet both of these technologies deal with signals much larger in magnitude than the passive magnetic fields that SQUID detectors have to deal with. And we know that SQUIDs work.

  • I love all the answers, thanks to all. Was frustrated often in DIY pat. pend. ap. fails in a wide variety of tech: RAID storage, 3D video/print imaging, VR imaging of real objects w actual photo-mapping, a text display method improving all reading metrics, allowing dyslexics to read normally, an articulating bed able to reduce almost any type pain or induce medative states. Currently: one enabling those working with chemicals/elements in any science to foresee/solve application issues. So I felt 'cheated' to see that patent granted. Apr 30 at 3:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .