Please help me parse these patents

[avataress]

I know that not every patent granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office necessarily works as described. I have three that I'd like to know if anyone here can build and operate or tell me if they believe they will work as described. The first one was granted almost 40 years ago (!) in 1976, the second one 20 years later to the month, and the other in 2002 to the U.S. Air Force. You can see these patents in their entirety including abstracts and schematics, as I'm sure you know, at Google in their patents department. Their numbers are: 3951134; 5507291 and; 6470214.

I have spoken with the daughter of the first patent holder by phone, which patent holder has been deceased for some time. If she still lives at the same place, I still have her contact info. If you'd like to discuss more about that, please contact me privately.

I have reason to believe that these patents are in use as I write this and have been for a long time. This, although I can't be sure because I don't have the technical expertise to totally understand the ramifications of the patents, hence this thread. I'd like to know for sure, if possible if these machines work as described. Thanks any respondents.

P.S.--Are there any professional statisticians, preferably employed by the U.S. Government or an accredited U.S. college or university here who might like to help me compete for the $1 million James Randi Paranormal Prize to share in half the winnings? I don't know if they'll allow me to say this here, but I don't believe they will ever award that prize to anyone because thousands of people have tried for it over more than half a century, if I'm not mistaken, and not one has even passed the preliminary testing! I'm willing to try though with a little help; it would be worth big publicity just for applying, which upon submitting my application, I will send out press releases about my attempt, which publicity would be well worth it to me!

Time is of the essence so, please answer A.S.A.P. either on this thread or to me personally. Thanks again!

 

[MikeG]

I can't help. I have a patent, for something I spent years developing and knew intimately..........and I could not recognise my own invention from the wording of the patent!!

 

[GlennB]

3951134

"Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves "

At first (and second, third and fourth) glance it looks like an attempt to patent woo.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Time is of the essence so, please answer A.S.A.P. either on this thread or to me personally. Thanks again!

Oh Donna.

But if you really believe you have a potential JREF challenge (We, this forum, are no longer associated with the JREF), start a thread in the JREF Challenge sub section here and members will be happy to help you design a protocol that you can present to the JREF.

You will however find, those thousands hundreds who failed, did so for a reason.

I do hope you start a new thread there, I look forward to reading your claim.

 

[Horatius]

3951134

"Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves "

At first (and second, third and fourth) glance it looks like an attempt to patent woo.

To understand patents, and what they really cover, you need to look at the claims, not the description. I don't have time to analyse this one right now, but I'll come back later and discuss it. Here's the main independent claim:

1. Brain wave monitoring apparatus comprising

means for producing a base frequency signal,

means for producing a first signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency and at a predetermined phase related thereto,

means for transmitting both said base frequency and said first signals to the brain of the subject being monitored,

means for receiving a second signal transmitted by the brain of the subject being monitored in response to both said base frequency and said first signals,

mixing means for producing from said base frequency signal and said received second signal a response signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency, and

means for interpreting said response signal.

 

[Monza]

I can't help. I have a patent, for something I spent years developing and knew intimately..........and I could not recognise my own invention from the wording of the patent!!

Same here. The wording on my patent is not the clearest, most straight-forward description of the idea. There is definitely a patent-ese language.

 

[Vic Vega]

I don't know if they'll allow me to say this here, but I don't believe they will ever award that prize to anyone because thousands of people have tried for it over more than half a century, if I'm not mistaken, and not one has even passed the preliminary testing!

And why do you think that is?

 

[Ladewig]

To understand patents, and what they really cover, you need to look at the claims, not the description. I don't have time to analyse this one right now, but I'll come back later and discuss it. Here's the main independent claim:

1. Brain wave monitoring apparatus comprising

means for producing a base frequency signal,

means for producing a first signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency and at a predetermined phase related thereto,

means for transmitting both said base frequency and said first signals to the brain of the subject being monitored,

means for receiving a second signal transmitted by the brain of the subject being monitored in response to both said base frequency and said first signals,

mixing means for producing from said base frequency signal and said received second signal a response signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency, and

means for interpreting said response signal.

But even that leaves out an important point or two. The patent says that all this can be done remotely. But with out a definition of remotely, we done know if we are talking about halfway across the room or halfway across a continent..

 

[Ladewig]

I don't know if they'll allow me to say this here,

Good news. As long as one does not threaten to harm someone, one can say pretty much anything without being edited, censored, suspended, or banned.

One is perfectly free to accuse the JREF of being a scam started by a two-bit BS artist intent on fleecing the gullible and making money off of followers who are too close minded to accept the miraculous powers of faith healers, after-death communicators, mind readers, and dowsers

it would be worth big publicity just for applying, which upon submitting my application, I will send out press releases about my attempt, which publicity would be well worth it to me!

I fear you may be grossly over-estimating the value of the publicity that comes from a successful application. But I could be completely wrong. Proceed with your claim. (Just a note, a fair number of people don't even make it to the preliminary testing, because they are unable to provide a clear and brief description of what they claim that they can do.)

 

[Loss Leader]

Newsflash: US Patent Clerks are young, overworked lawyers with a little science background. They are very rarely experts in the patents they are approving. Their main goal is to check that a patent is new and unique. They do not need a demonstration that a patented method works as described. Though they can turn down a patent application based on it not working, they tend only to do so in the most obvious of cases.

The US Air Force does not have a machine that can broadcast thoughts directly into your head.

 

[Horatius]

But even that leaves out an important point or two. The patent says that all this can be done remotely. But with out a definition of remotely, we done know if we are talking about halfway across the room or halfway across a continent..

Yes, well, that's part of my point. In the description, they can, and often do, say all sorts of things about what may be done. But under US and Canadian practice, it's only the claims that require something that can be done. That gives people lots of leeway for describing things that never make it into the claims.

Let's break this claim down:

1. Brain wave monitoring apparatus comprising

Well, first things first, right off the bat this is limited only to monitoring. No mention of being able to control, change or alter.

means for producing a base frequency signal,
means for producing a first signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency and at a predetermined phase related thereto,

These are just any standard electronic signal generators.

means for transmitting both said base frequency and said first signals to the brain of the subject being monitored,

And all this is, is some sort of electrode or other emitter that directs the signal into the brain.

means for receiving a second signal transmitted by the brain of the subject being monitored in response to both said base frequency and said first signals,

This is just any standard means for monitoring brain waves. The only trick is the limit "in response to". It doesn't specify what sort of response. For scientific purposes, "No reaction at all" could be considered a response.

mixing means for producing from said base frequency signal and said received second signal a response signal having a frequency related to that of the base frequency, and

This again is just standard signal mixing.

means for interpreting said response signal.

And then we interpret the response. Again, "No reaction!" is a legitimate interpretation.


So what they've really patented is a means of mixing a signal, sending that signal into a brain, and then subsequently monitoring the brain activity. There's nothing to suggest that the delivered signal does anything at all to the brain, let alone something specific or useful. Any reaction at all, or even no reaction, will be monitored, and that's literally all that's required.

Will this device produce any measurable effect on the brain? It might; we know for instance that light signals can produce changes in brain activity (that's what "seeing" is all about). Note that the claim does not limit the nature of the signal at all. We could set up a system that shines lights of certain frequencies into a person's eyes (that being the "means for transmitting the signal to the brain"), and then monitor the brain with a regular EEG, to see if there is any effect. And we know there likely would be. Epileptics are known to develop seizures as a result of such light effects, and there's no reason to think other people's brains wouldn't react at all.

 

[Pup]

I have reason to believe that these patents are in use as I write this and have been for a long time.

Let me guess. You believe someone (the government?) is beaming thoughts into your brain or otherwise controlling your thoughts.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Newsflash: US Patent Clerks are young, overworked lawyers with a little science background. They are very rarely experts in the patents they are approving. Their main goal is to check that a patent is new and unique. They do not need a demonstration that a patented method works as described. Though they can turn down a patent application based on it not working, they tend only to do so in the most obvious of cases.

Slight correction: Most patent examiners are not attorneys. Most (all?) have a science background, but many will be examining patents outside of their field of study. I talked to one some time ago who was examining in rocket science (her field of study) and animal husbandry (something she was learning on the fly), for example.

Also, examiners have strict quotas and can not spend very much time on each patent. The PTO is run as a profit center for the US government.

It is a pretty **** job for an attorney and most with a law degree will move on within a year or two. Clients value former examiners even if their fellow attorneys tend to assume they took the job out of desperation upon graduating with no other viable options. I have worked with good former examiners and bad. I try not to judge on that criteria.

Mind control devices is not the sort of thing one gets a masters in. I doubt the examiners for these patents had the requisite science background as I am unsure what the requisite science back ground would be.

 

[ben m]

6470214: "Method and device for implementing the radio frequency hearing effect "

Sounds like there is a (known) phenomenon whereby if you shoot a high power microwave pulse at someone's ear, literally heating up their eardrum, they hear a click. This patent attempts to describe RF pulse trains in which these clicks could combine into more complex audio signals. Doesn't sound controversial, interesting, or useful, and certainly not paranormal.

You know that high-power microwaves are easily detected by things *other than* your eardrums, right? If you are concerned about this sort of thing you can buy an RF power meter for $300. (It's worth noting that Randi and other paranormal-testers have often used RF power meters to ascertain that paranormal testees are not communicating with hidden radios or something.)

Patent 5507291: Method and an associated apparatus for remotely determining information as to person's emotional state

You think this is paranormal? Read more carefully. They are talking about "waves" and "energy" in vague terms, not because there is something paranormal about it, but because they want the patent to cover sound, radio, microwave, and visible-light remote sensing.

Claim 14: Since your chest moves when you're breathing, standard distance-measuring tools, like laser rangefinders, can measure your respiration rate remotely.

Claim 17: We can measure your pupil size remotely by taking a photograph of your eyes with a camera.

Claim 26: If NDIR or something can measure water vapor, we can tell if you're sweating or not. Remotely.

More generally, avataress: the JREF challenge is not "communicate with a person in another room! Without speaking to them!" Seriously, we can already read brain activity with EEG, fMRI, and other sci/tech methods. We can already communicate over long distances using the five senses and various technological aids. If you show up at JREF and (a) measure a stranger's respiration rate with LIDAR and (b) communicate it to another person by microwaving their eardrums, that's not paranormal and you will not win a prize.

 

[Ladewig]

I am not associated with the JREF Challenge in any way. My opinion carries absolutely no weight.

That being said, if an important part of one's preparation of a JREF Challenge involves researching specific patents, then one has no idea what the JREF Challenge is. The very, very best way to prepare for an attempt on the JREF Challenge is is to succinctly and clearly state one's claim. Doing anything other than that is a waste of everyone's time. I cannot emphasize that concept enough.

 

[ben m]

There's some guesswork here, but it almost sounds like your claim is/would be:

"I believe that the CIA (?) has been reading/controlling people's minds with radio waves (?). People called me crazy/delusional/woo (?) for believing this. I will present evidence that will prove that I was right, i.e. that the CIA really can do this (and did?), and thereby win the JREF $1M."

Is that about right?

 

[avataress]

Thanks, Jim

Thanks for this, Jim. Can you tell me how many hundreds there were? I don't suppose that you would know the reasons why ALL of them failed? That seems statistically fishy to me, although I'm no professional statistician as you may have surmised ! I will try the forum you recommended though.

 

[avataress]

Thanks for this info. I'll look forward to your further response. If I'm not mistaken, there are more to the claims than what you have stated, like being able to tell if someone is awake or asleep according to their brainwave patterns, AND being able to understand, verbatim, what they're thinking. And that's only the first patent I mentioned, if I'm not mistaken.

Have you seen the drawing of how the first two are supposed to work, namely, one with a subject sitting in front of a desk that someone is sitting behind with the apparatus remotely and therefore possibly without the subject's knowledge working? In the second patent there is a drawing of a subject ostensibly walking down a street or a corridor with the same effect. That's what concerns me.

It would also seem to me that the only way to know if the invention works is to test it. Everything else seems like mere conjecture to me. Please tell me if I'm mistaken. I think complete schematics of necessary parts and components on how to build such devices, at least the first one, are included, at least in the copy of the patent I have printed out some years ago.

I do not know the first thing about electronic devises except that the ones I have work as described and I have only just learned that my thermal fax machine works like a modern day computer scanner, so I have to rely on the truthfulness of those like you who might know more. . .for now.

 

[avataress]

Why do I think what? That they wouldn't allow me say on this forum that I don't think they'll ever award the patent or that I think they won't ever award the patent?

The answer to the former is that I'm new here and I don't know the ropes that well. I didn't even know that one can't post a formal icon that goes with every one of one's posts until one has made 50 posts! Live and learn.

The answer to the second is that I don't know how to put exactly into words my suspicions about that. I guess it's a similar trouble, though perhaps not exactly analogous, to that of the two gentlemen who have patents but who feel that they have not been able to describe the workings of their patents adequately who answered this post.

I will say, as I've said above, that it seems statistically "fishy" in that 100% of the hundreds of applicants to date have not even gotten past the preliminary test stage. Does anyone know if there's any way for ME to discover in at least some of the cases why that was so and if the applicant's agreed? I'd settle for five cases of my choice.

 

[avataress]

If I'm not mistaken, I think the patent states an operating range. I also think the patent holder claimed it could be used to help detect when aircraft pilots fall asleep at the controls. I don't know if the device, which seems pretty cumbersome would need to be on the airplane or not. That's a good and valid question. I, however, don't know the answer. Remote also means in my understanding that the apparatus does not need to be attached to the subject by electrodes or any other such devices like present electroencephalograph machines or fMRI's which means it can be used on its subject without the subject's knowledge or consent. Anyone?