Know–How and IP in Applied Hydrology
Examiners, Inventors, and Attorneys,
Whenever the word ‘wick/wicking’ is mentioned in any patent is shows that lay people are trying to address Hydrology by ignoring textbooks and missing common knowledge in the scientific literature.
“A long standing negligence toward Hydrology in the patenting system opens a wide gap for technological development on fluidic applications.”
What if the ‘new ideas’ are standing partially on my Hydrology PhD textbooks more than a century deploying technical expressions that are commonplace in the scientific community more than a century?
I was just wondering if by chance any of you happen to be a Hydrologist.
It seems that no Hydrologist is involved in the Patenting System affairs so far.
Initially I thought to have stumbled to a sort of ‘SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY’ in Hydrodynamics. But, now I am confident of facing a long standing BIAS inside the Patenting System by a horde of professionals from many areas playing Hydrology skirting deep understanding of Classical Hydrology as explained in details below. It is not a simple mistake by a junior Examiner, but flaws by senior Examiners, Supervisor, Director, behind an institutional patent management structure that ignores Hydrology blatantly.
My scientific discovery leads toward the Third Generation of Porosity - Tubarc, man made and highly advanced to allow harnessing hydrodynamics properties of fluids moving through porous systems.
1. ‘The First Generation of Porosity’, Geo Porosity, was designed by nature around 2 billion of years ago in the simple arrangement of weathering rocks making the composition of soils in the random arrangement of tiny particles.
2. ‘The Second Generation of Porosity’ I call ‘Biological Porosity’ that was organized inside plants and animals in the spatial arrangement of live beings to make fluids cycling accordingly in the functioning of life. It was developed around half a billion of years as unicellular organisms grew to multicelular ones expanding their dimensions and requiring a specific hydrological internal functioning.
3. ‘The Third Generation of Porosity’ Tubarc (Tube + Arc) is an enhanced Geometry proposal for porosity correcting the constriction of cylindrical structures of capillaries allowing PORE CONNECTIVITY on a prevailing longitudinal flow. Also it provides deep insights on macroporosity to move or retain fluids playing with the functioning of Hydraulic Zones as self-sustaining and reversible Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow taking advantages of Molecular Connectivity on mass flow dynamics. Tubarc takes into account insights from Geo and Biological porosities functioning as well as human capability to handle material and fluid dynamics requirement for fluidic devices.
IDS and FLAWS
Just after my first issued patent
Unhappily IDS request has been useless since Examiners are not trained in Classical Hydrology to comprehend common knowledge from my PhD textbooks as well as new conceptions in Hydrodynamics disclaimed at 6,766,817. This happened when Ms. Gladys J. P. Corcoran and Mr. Sean E Conley Primary and Assistant Examiners issued 7,244,398 on
IDS request is just useless when the Patent Examiner is not a Hydrologist. It is a waste of time revealing advanced knowledge to a person that is not trained to comprehend such complex information.
Ms. Corcoran is a senior Patent Examiner with 201 issued patents in her log leading to a conclusion that the problem root is far deeper as she became also a Supervisor and now Director. I tried to prevent USPTO to run to such dilemma as I sent five written notifications (October 20, 2006, November 28, 2006, December 14, 2006, August 2, 2007, August 5, 2007) demanding Hydrologists to Examine Hydrological issues.
The Breakthrough
During my PhD in Soil Science/Spatial Applied Hydrology at Penn State Univ. when I was attending many Hydrology classes in Soil Sciences, Geosciences I recall seeing NO Mechanical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Chemists, Biochemists, etc. as peer students in my classrooms.
It seems that Mechanical Engineering and many other sciences developed a sort of ‘quick’ Applied Hydrology far away from Classical Hydrology stripping basic knowledge and even creating some distorting terminology that hurts basic science like ‘capillary pumping’, ‘capillary wicking’, wicking action, wicking index, wicking structure, wicking, etc. Certainly there is no pumping in capillarity as fluid moves itself responding to a fluid matric gradient by unsaturated hydraulic flow. Tubarc upgrades capillarity conceptions since it is hard to contrive a cylindrical structure in the porosity around randomly arranged irregular soil particles as tube geometry does not allow lateral flow for anisotropy on porosity structures.
For near a century USPTO has fed an evident bias against Hydrology that needs to be fixed because Classical Hydrology is standing on scientific literature much earlier for a very long time as flaws results from lay people missing available knowledge. Henry Darcy proposed a Law about Hydraulic Conductivity in 1856.
When carrying out a simple Exploratory Analysis at Conductivity approach in the Patenting System, Heat is mentioned in around 66,533 issued patents, Electricity 48,135 issued patents while Hydrology only 462 issued patents, but for the hydrology of wicks (unsaturated flow) not even a single patent ever addresses conductivity among near 23,379 issued patents from lay people addressing wick/wicking. Conclusively Hydrology in the patenting affairs is being choked by laypeople far away from advanced knowledge available in Hydrological Sciences. It is intriguing that US 6,766,817 is the first one to measure Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity on artificial porosity, but the technique I developed can be taught to kids at junior school playing self-watering.
Patenting Gap
Hydrology has been neglected on fluidic devices by Inventors, Patent Attorneys, and also Patent Examiners. There is a vertical analytical assessment in Hydrology dealing with the fluid matric gradient which is the underlying conception for unsaturated flow allowing a spatial analyses approach gauging fluid dynamics in time and space. It seems that such features were never portrayed in the patenting affairs.
US 6,766,817 p. 1. line 65 ‘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.’
“Tubarc (
US 6,766,817 p. 2. line 60 ‘Specialized scientific literature about unsaturated zones also recognizes this shortcoming. For example: "Several differences and complications must be considered. One complication is that concepts of unsaturated flow are not as fully developed as those for saturated flow, nor are they as easily applied." (See Dominico & Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Pg. 88. Wiley). Concepts of unsaturated flow have not been fully developed to date, because the "capillary action" utilized to measure the adhesion-cohesion force of porosity is restrained by capillary tube geometry conceptions. The term "capillary action" has been wrongly utilized in the art as a synonym for unsaturated flow, which results in an insinuation that the tube geometry conception captures this phenomenon when in truth it does not.’
6,766,817 Fluid conduction utilizing a reversible unsaturated siphon with tubarc porosity action
6,918,404 Irrigation and drainage based on hydrodynamic unsaturated fluid flow
7,066,586 Ink refill and recharging system
m i c r o p o r o s i t y m a c r o p o r o s i t y
When a fluid moves the science behind it is called HYDROLOGY and none of my PhD textbooks ever mentioned a word ‘wick/wicking’ simply because this expression is used by lay people not in Hydrology and has connotation to the combination of Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics in the restrict functioning of oil lamps delivering fuel upward to a flame. ‘Lay people’ have been abusing it by skirting Hydrology and making basic mistakes like happened to US 7,285,255 hurting common knowledge on textbooks as consequence of missing appropriate background.
“– But, Dr. Silva, even a caveman knows what a wick is in the art!”
“– Indeed, he does!” So, you give him the wick of your patent application and he will test and tell you if it works on his old oil lamp. If your claimed wick fails on his oil lamp he will tell you that you got something else that is not a wick anymore. Then, your patent application is cheating the caveman, the Patenting System, and long standing advanced Hydrology Science by claiming something that does not hold any longer.
Broad Hydrological Ignorance
There is a widespread Hydrological ignorance among inventors working with fluidic applications. The Procter & Gamble Company declined any interest on my five idea applications: 11526, 11170, 11533, 11534, and 11979. But, afterwards my ideas started coming poorly inside their patent applications and I had to ask IDS like happened to 20080015531.
“When rejecting something it is important to have confidence that you do not need it, and that you have no intention to overstep such rejected boundaries. It may be a pretension to be smart or just an evidence of missing wisdom.”
This picture on the right would suggest that PG has only lay people in Hydrology working with fluidic application and that the system is very negligent to control their R&D guidelines. There is no doubt about the importance of advanced Hydrology to PG product lines dealing with personal hygiene, mainly absorption or retention of fluids on artificial porous systems.
My suggestion to Law Firms and general companies filing patents on fluidic devices is to hire experts from Geosciences so that the advanced Hydrology from my textbooks and my issued patents are respected scientifically and legally. Also, there is no other way for product development besides employing advanced science holding on textbooks more than a century and widely accepted on scientific literature.
My Demand to USPTO
Since Internet allowed an advanced IP development by fast access to information online it becomes quite easy to understand that Hydrology will prevail on a long range just because science cannot be ignored. It is not that hard to argue 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.
Mr. Gregory Moser Patent Commissioner said that USPTO is careless if any issued patent violates SCIENCE, meaning that flawed patents can be issued willy-nilly. Technically it seems that Patent Examiners are free and protected to violate Science within their own professional expertise. But, it seems that providing a biased judgment to other SCIENCES outside ethical boundaries and technical skills open room for lawsuits on Ethics regarding a judgment on a field not licensed for. So, letting non Hydrologists judge Hydrological issues can be a strong issue for lawsuits on Ethics. Scientific flaws at US 7,285,255 by a Director shows how serious is the violation by people lacking appropriate skills to judge in an area they were not trained for.
Flawed patents are less likely to result when Examiners are judging strictly within the boundaries of their due expertise. Then, it becomes a fair deal to avoid Lay People judging Hydrology. There are 1,958,471 issued patents associated with “fluid OR liquid OR flow OR fluidic”. I found 2,074 Patent Examiners that are likely overstepping their expertise boundaries hurting science, breaking the Law and feeding a persistent bias against Hydrology.
I have a deep confidence that the advanced knowledge of my issued patents and common knowledge from Hydrology will prevail soon as wise inventors know that nature rules are the center of IP protection.
Longer USPTO takes to assume its responsibility regarding Hydrology negligence less confidence inventors will find to file patents that may end up worthless if no competent examiners are in charge to protect IP rights.
Wise inventors know that cheating on nature fails IP protection.
Kind regards,
Av. Dr. Julio Soares de Arruda, 838
Parque São Quirino
13088-300
Phone 55 *19 3256-7265
Email: el_silva@uol.com.br
p.s. Hydrological background missing in the patenting system
Since Jul 25, 2001 Tubarc
1. PRIOR ART - Wick = device to conduct fuel upward toward a flame on oil lamp (Thermodynamics + Hydrodynamics)
2. IP - Tubarc = device that fails to conduct fuel on oil lamp revealing a complex hydrology (Reversible Unsaturated Siphon)
1. PRIOR ART - Capillary Action = flow of fluid inside cylindrical geometry of capillaries
2. IP - Tubarc Action = flow of fluid on general porosity (random or enhanced) allowing higher control on hydrodynamic properties
It is possible to draw a precise line on the scientific boundaries between wick, capillary, and Tubarc since inventors filing patents with fluidic devices are not aware of such technical limits and likely overlapping Tubarc boundaries. Below are some insights according to Hydrogeology/Soil Physics:
Wick = Thermodynamics + Hydrodynamics (upward flow toward a flame). Wicks have to work as wicks on oil lamps (Metaphysics of Science).
Capillary (and derivatives) = Tube theory (is not a porosity because lateral walls of tubes do not let multidirectional flow hurting the functioning of Unsaturated Hydraulic Zone flowing downward).
Capillary Action = fluid moving by unsaturated hydraulic flow inside cylindrical structures having a unique directional flow (common knowledge – no porosity)
Present etymological use of fluids moving on porosity according to USPTO database by patent search hits (
3 “Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow” (All Tubarc Patents)
19 “Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity” (3 Tubarc Patents)
460 “Hydraulic Conductivity” (3 Tubarc Patents)
34 “Unsaturated Flow”
232 “Capillary pumping”
19,585 “Capillary (Force OR Action OR Movement)
23,297 “Wick or Wicking”
47,928 “Electrical Conductivity”
68,875 “Wick/Wicking/Capillary/Capillarity”
1,268 “Heat Pipe and Wick”
66,276 “Thermal/Heat Conductivity”
This finding above show clearly that inventors filing patents dealing with fluid moving on porosity lack schooling from Geosciences or Soil Sciences (Hydrogeology/Soil Physics) to appropriately address hydrological applications of fluid moving on porous systems.
