Yeah, just keep posting that delusional stuff. Fact of the matter is, you seem to think that "a global patent ... which has standing virtually everywhere, including the US" somehow overcomes the problem with the US being "too pigheaded to grant (you) a patent". It's clear that you think this "global patent" would be valid in the US, no matter how you now choose to spin your words.
ETA: and in reviewing this post, I just noticed that you don't even know the proper sequence in which to do things. Hint: if you follow the schedule posted above, you would almost certainly end up screwing yourself out of the vast majority of your potential patents in various jurisdictions.
And there you do it again. There's no such thing as a "valid WIPO patent".
Bottom line, no he doesn't. Bottom line is, the vast majority of his patent applications have been rejected, both in the US and elsewhere. It's plainly obvious that you don't even understand the basics of patents enough to see this.
Mills has standing in Canada, Israel and with the WIPO. He can go to market in any of those countries. At that point he will have a demonstrable product and can demand legal protection from any participating member state.
Let's go back to NOLO.
"Most industrialized countries are also members of the PCT, a treaty that enables inventors to file a relatively economical
international application in their home country within one year of their home country filing date. "
But it doesn't stop there.
"There are two advantages in filing a PCT application:
the inventor obtains a filing date that is good in every member country in which the inventor seeks patent protection; and an initial
international patent search will be conducted and PCT member countries will rely heavily on this search."
So because Mills has standing in a member state and has
international applications on file, he can go back to the US office with a working device and get a patent that's back-dated to the time of filing with the PCT.
If the US still refuses to grant a patent, Mills can again take them to court. There's no way a judge is going to deny a patent application on a fully functional device that already has standing patents on file with member states.
Now technically you are correct that there is no such thing as a valid WIPO patent, but his CA, IL and WO patents on file with the WIPO are essentially just that - they give him the right to back date his patents practically everywhere.
My original statement still stands. First you get a patent filed in a member state, then you file with WIPO.