1

In reference to the patent application 20190295733. I might be wrong, but as far as I know a working Plasma Compression Fusion Device wasn't made yet, although it is possible theoretically.

However, I've looked up "inventor:(Salvatore Pais)" through the google patents and found things like this:

Piezoelectricity-induced Room Temperature Superconductor

Again, I'm not an expert, but the Wikipedia says room-temperature superconductors reports have not been confirmed yet:

Since the discovery of high-temperature superconductors, several materials have been reported to be room-temperature superconductors, although none of these reports has been confirmed.

This is also a patent application, and not a patent. Is it okay to apply for a patent without a working prototype? Is it normal for the US patent law (I have zero knowledge of it), or is it the particular inventor's thing?

  • The cited document on room temperature superconductors is only an application. – Eric Shain Oct 14 '19 at 13:22
  • @EricShain fair point, didn't notice this – enkryptor Oct 14 '19 at 13:57
1

You've discovered the dirty laundry of the patent system. There is no burden to prove your invention actually works. Some people might argue this isn't a problem since no one would want to infringe on a technology that doesn't function. However where this breaks down is when the patent gets an overly broad claim. So to answer your question, I'm not sure if it is considered "normal" to file applications on unproven inventions, but it isn't at all uncommon.

In any case, one has to dial back the concern a bit with applications. It is very common to start with overly broad claim language in applications only to have things tightened up considerably in the actual patent (assuming a patent is even issued). I'm not sufficiently skilled in these fields to assess the quality of the cited applications. The room temperature conductivity one seems questionable to me as I'm not sure what the point is of achieving superconductivity in a wire by exciting the wire with a low electrical efficiency piezo mechanism.

|improve this answer|||||
  • "this isn't a problem since no one would want to infringe on a technology that doesn't function" — it doesn't function yet. However, when such a technology will be actually implemented in practice, will it break the patent? – enkryptor Oct 14 '19 at 15:18
  • @enkryptor It depends entirely on what is in the claims. The claims should only cover the technology described by the patent. If someone figures out a way that does work, then is should be Ok. The problem is overly broad and vague claims. These do happen and it can be a real problem. The point is that the application shouldn't be trying to cover all room temperature superconductors just a specific implementation. Patent abstracts sometimes sound very general. Only the claims really matter. – Eric Shain Oct 14 '19 at 16:29
  • 1
    A danger is that a future patent application that describes something that actually does work might be rejected as "old" due to the previous non-functional patent. – George White Oct 14 '19 at 17:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.