It was abandoned by USPTO illegally because my petition was approved that my delay in responding to the examiner's request for communication was not my fault and yet the examiner had not honoured the decision of the petition.
There is supposed to be a procedure where we can petiton to remove the abandonment by petitioning for unintentional abandonment, but since I never abandoned the application, it will be an admission of abandonment if I had submitted to this procedure. The decision of the petion may also not be honoured by the examiner and USPTO, so the much higher cost of the petition compared to patent filing does not justify the cost of the petition.
What is worse, the same examiner had approved an application of patent filing of an invention that is a copy of this invention by Boeing, granted in 2019.
US20190193882A1 2020-02-24 Application status is Pending,
US10220972B2 2019-03-05 Application granted,
These are similar patents by Boeing Co with different status but one appears to be granted especially when its patent number is changed.
The idea is simply to reduce the volume in the station so that vacuum pumping work is less. It uses special devices to reduce the volume.
Whereas, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies Inc
needs a huge vacuum in a station.
US20170334312A1 2019-12-03 Application granted.
US20160121908A1 2020-02-24 Application status is Abandoned
The Zero Energy Transportation System invention does not need special devices to reduce the volume requiered to pump vacuum because the spaces are filled with carriages.
Once the need to reduce volume by filling with solid objects is realised, it should be obvious to any person skilled in the art to design devices either useful or not to fill spaces in order to reduce the amount of work to create the vacuum.
My invention, filed in US20160121908A1, uses useful items to fill the spaces. The difference between useful and other less useful substances or designs should be obvious and should not be granted a patent protection in liew of my disclosure.
My invention is more advanced and practical that these two inventions because its main emphasis right from the beginning is the reduce the burden of creating vacuum and to utilise the vacuum as propulsion also.
That is why my stations do not need to be completely vacuum all the time. With all these features, it is therefore surprising that UKIPO does not deem these features as inventive while USPTO already approved much more obvious inventions, and even outright copy of an idea patented in the invention, namely the methods to reduce the effort in creating vacuum.
It is the idea in an invention that is protected by a patent, not its design as I had pointed out to patent examiners. The design is just an example embodiment of the idea in the invention.
Just because the patent filing is abandoned does not mean that USPTO can just grant any inventions that are obvious to my disclosure. It is just illegal and immoral. In lieu of illegally abandoning my patent filing, I shall seek damages when the time comes.
No comments:
Post a Comment