Would this ever hold up in court? This describes the idea of one, without the impl. It is like me stating "I am planning on building a rocket, it will have stuff coming out this end, and it will fly to space". Isn't the point of patents the how as well as the what?
The patent covers a pressurized space elevator tower.
However, note that the part they have really patented here is the "plurality of segments and pressurized cells" part. The claims were amended during prosecution, in light of the examiner rejecting them all as anticipated by various references :)
The way to discover this is to go to the USPTO's "public pair" system, enter the application or patent number, click "image file wrapper", and you can see all the correspondence between the examiner and the applicant. You are looking for the rejections and the amendment/claims parts that happened.
In response to this rejection, the applicant added the "divided into a plurality of segments along a length of the space elevator tower, each of said plurality of segments containing a plurality of cells defining a core, and a plurality of stabilization devices distributed along the length of the space elevator tower; wherein the plurality of cells are pressurized with a gas to support the pneumatically pressurized structure; and wherein said plurality of stabilization devices is configured to provide active stabilization of the space elevator tower using a harmonic control strategy." requirements in claim 1.
This means a space elevator tower which was not exactly this would not be covered in any way (because they have given up doctrine of equivalents by amending the claims).
That is just on it's face. In court, if someone came up with a reference for a space elevator with these features, it would be invalid there too ;)
I'm pretty sure I saw a description like this in both Wikipedia and several scifi books. Not sure how they even managed to patent this much at all.
Also thanks for explaining to the HN crowd how to check the full folio. Reading patents became a lot easier when an IP lawyer showed me that years ago. It removes so much of the "wtf" from many of these "bullshit patents".
It's just describing building a tower using multiple sections which is in itself sub-divided. this sounds like a pure concept as well. And still very broad as they didn't specify the size of the sections. Nor did it specify what the stabilization devices are.
What do you mean by "pure concept" that's not a patent thing :)
Do you mean an abstract idea?
Because it isn't. It's a method of constructing a physical thing.
"And still very broad as they didn't specify the size of the sections."
They don't have to, as long as it's possible to build it.
Again, your complaint seems to be the examiner didn't search hard enough to find references. This is not a simple problem to solve (Trust me, I have worked on it for years)
Legally the patent has to disclose to someone skilled in the relevant art, how to enable the invention. So basically, if you handed this patent to engineers at Boeing, NASA, SpaceX, MIT, or UIUC or whomever, could they actually carry out the invention.
The written description also has to be sufficient enough to show that you actually possess the invention when the patent is filed.
So technically, if this can't be built today because we don't know of any materials that can actually behave this way, it's not a valid patent.
I'm not totally sure what happens in cases where the invention is possible but so prohibitively expensive that it's not really possible. I'd imagine that is valid.
Traditionally, invalidating a patent based on written description or enablement issues was hard. But the Fed Circuit has made it easier in recent decades.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be valid, but I'm not familiar with the sort of building materials necessary to build a space elevator. My understanding is that nothing we have today could do it, but that's based on light reading.
EDIT: I'd also be willing to bet that some popscience mag or text book discloses this general idea anyway, so it'd be invalid based on prior art too.
I heard an interview with the inventor on NPR last night where he claimed that all the materials and indeed, the technology needed to do this already exist.
The reason this contradicts your reading is likely because, as others have commented, it's not a real space elevator. It doesn't go to space, and it is more like a super-tall building with an interesting adaptive stability system than a tether connected to a counterweight as in traditional space elevator designs.
So this also means it may not be prior art. The innovation is located in however it is they plan to keep a 20km tall structure stable and attach an electric elevator for rockets to it.
Sure about the 'possess' part? A model hasn't been required since the 1800's. The use of computers and video cameras in manufacturing was patented decades before it was practical.
I often see this on HN: ideas are nothing; execution is everything.
I don't think a model is necessary for a patent application, but some check on bullshit is necessary. If you are granted the patent, and following the instructions in it does not yield a working device--or if the instructions cannot be followed, because they require an impossibility or something that does not yet exist--that should be grounds for immediate disqualification.
There has to be some way to encourage "this is how you do it" over "so I have this really cool idea that I think is worth lots of money".
Possess the invention doesn't mean to actually use the invention. Just to fully understand the invention. As opposed to just envisioning an invention in broad strokes. The invention just has to be ready to be used, but that doesn't necessarily mean practically.
IAAL. The patent must enable what is claimed. Here is the USPTO's instructions to examiners on the topic:
The information contained in the disclosure of an application must be sufficient to inform those skilled in the relevant art how to both make and use the claimed invention. However, to comply ..., it is not necessary to “enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment ...”
Any lawyers able to comment?