Andrea Rossi, an American citizen displaced in Italy due to the lack of patent approval by the US patent office has developed what is known as the E-Cat or Hot-Cat. His patent issued by the Italian patent office describes the same effect and he uses a variation of similar materials including Nickel powder. His process has been scrutinized by a scientific third party review board that recently announced positive results with proof beyond any reasonable doubt that a Low Energy Nuclear Reaction exists when placed in the same conditions as mentioned in the Patent in question. My question to Ask-Patents is: Has this Patent under question been issued and approved? If the patent under question has been approved, noting that Andrea Rossi's original patent applied for through the US patent office was denied due to Quote: ""the description of the device was based on "general statements and speculations" and citing "numerous deficiencies in both the description and in the evidence provided to support its feasibility" as well as incompatibilities with "generally accepted laws of physics and established theories.""; Has the US Patent office changed it's view point on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions? If so, would this be considered an unjust issuance of the patent under question? Or is your stand point that Rossi failed to describe his patent in an acceptable manner?


This is an application for a cold fusion method, not a granted patent. It is likely to be rejected using similar wording to what you quote.

Even if weren't cold fusion is hard to take an application seriously that has a one paragraph specification, no drawings and claims that do not meet the basic standards as to form. I do not know anything about Andrea Rossi but I do not believe any patent office with examination would grant a cold fusion patent.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for the quick reply. I had the same thoughts on the inadequate single paragraph description. Cold fusion has evolved as of late to be referred to as LENR or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. NASA has recently supported it's validity based on the new "Windom Larsen Theory" a description can be found at [newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/WL/WLTheory.shtml] Would the US patent office be willing to review their policies on LENR based on the new progress in the field? – user3527 Apr 4 '13 at 8:47
  • I have heard that both heavier than air flight and remedies for baldness were once considered by the USPTO to be of "incredible utility" and therefore no patents would be issued for lack of utility. A demonstarted break through in this area could prove everyone wrong. I do not think it has happened yet. – George White Apr 4 '13 at 15:15
  • I'll get back with you on that. The demonstrations have been presented already. The independent third party report will be published this month. If that doesn't suffice then I don't know what will. So would a published independent scientific review where the inventor has no control over testing count as demonstrated breakthrough? – user3527 Apr 5 '13 at 5:33

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.