Google is Not a Truth Engine for Emerging Science

June 4, 2024 – AquaNew’s Rob Gourley has discovered a new science that needs its own set of definitions or search words to describe in his patent applications. It has been a long 17-year journey with routine rejections issued by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examination officers whom admit they rely on Google searches. During a meeting in 2017, one examiner with extensive science background had an ahh-ha! realization on Rob’s scientific breakthrough that would open up to countless uses. Subsequent to that 2017 meeting, the examiner provided in writing recommendations to change some of the terms used in Rob’s patent application to make it more “patentable”, meaning an improved description such that those skilled in the art are enabled to use the invention plus it helps the public “to foster and enhance the development and disclosure of new ideas and advancement of scientific knowledge” (Rule 35 U.S.C. 112). Of course after the great eye-opening meeting, we had renewed optimism in following his advice by filing what is called a “continuation-in-part”. Then we waited and waited and two years went by to eventually find out that the file had been lost plus no examiner was assigned to Rob’s case. After writing letters to the U.S. President and our U.S. Congressional Representative, another examiner was assigned Rob’s patent application within 48 hours.

On June 4, 2024, I sat at the USPTO appeal board trial to watch the clock and advise both Rob and one of our expert witnesses not run over the allocated 20 minutes before three judges. After multiple efforts to demonstrate to the examiners, Rob was again disallowed from demonstrating one of his machines prior to the trial. Even with that handicap, Rob spoke from his heart on the public benefit of his invention and how it is new science. Our expert witness in his presentation whom has extensively tested the DiTetra Gas and uses it in numerous of his medical devices, complemented Rob’s presentation. We await the judges’ decision.

So I wonder if relying on Google searches in patent reviews “scrubs” new science, like causing either a delay or even a cancellation of a NASA space rocket launch. It seems the general acceptance of new science can take decades after the inventor’s discovery, unfortunately well beyond their lifetime.  So should the patent office rely on information from Google searches using conventional terms to determine that a new science is impossible and the examiner therefore concludes it has no public good? In reviewing the topic, of course online, Google administrators admit that Google is not a “truth engine”.  They admit what pops up on Google from a search can come from the perception of a content generator and not always from experts or authentic sources.

Instead, new science needs to be experienced in real time … not cyber searched. In his presentation to the USPTO appeal board, Rob requested that the judges either contact the examiner from the 2017 meeting who still works for the USPTO and told Rob about a week before the trial that he recalls the meeting, or allow Rob to demonstrate the machine to a technical advisor of the appeal board who has knowledge in physical chemistry. Rob testified that the public is receiving something in return for a patent issuance. People are experiencing the cool breeze directly from Rob’s machines every day, and also drinking Watt-Ahh along with using medical devices that improve and protect their health and wellbeing.

We also extend our appreciation to U.S. Representative Vern Buchanan’s office who filed a Congressional Inquiry on Rob’s behalf to the U.S. Commerce Department over the USPTO multiple rejections to allow Rob to demonstrate his machine.