Inventor claims circuit that can wirelessly power LCD TV 3m away

[abstraxt]

Hello Everyone,

An inventor from the country where I reside claims to be able to charge a multitude of devices and power an LCD TV wirelessly up to 3m away from the transmitter without needing any alignment between the transmitter and receiver. The inventor also claims to be able to interface with Qi devices (!!) without any extra circuitry.

I’m livid because she’s started suing a number of people in the country who criticised her device, has been scamming institutions and companies for money, and almost convinced a friend of mine to invest with her. I’ve talked him out of it, analysed the patent on my own, and am skeptical the device works as intended much less work at all.

However it’s been a while since I did any electronics work, and so I’d appreciate extra input and possible help in proving this is a fraud. Here’s the patent for anyone interested and thank you in advance.

[Andy Chee]

Unfortunately, a dodgy patent is not enough documentation to prove fraud.

For fraud, you need the documentation for bank transactions as well.

[abstraxt]

Agreed. I at least want to make the case that it doesn’t work, since she’s suing people on the basis that the invention does work and they’re “slandering her work.”

[tooki]

I am not a lawyer, but at first glance I suspect that patent is unenforceable, and likely should never have been issued, since patents require the invention to be new, non-obvious, and not violate the laws of physics. The USPTO can (and IMHO should have, in this case) ask for a working model.

But yeah, I suspect this patent would be easy to defeat in court, in USA at least. (Though doing so would still cost many thousands of $ in lawyer fees.)

[TimFox]

Which jurisdiction issued the patent?
Real inventions are usually submitted for patents in multiple jurisdictions, such as the USPTO (US) and EPO (Europe).

[Haenk]

There you go, thank me later for not investing.

[Marco]

If you're willing to have it operate at very low efficiency, with a huge transmitting coil. Sure it could work.

The only way to send wireless energy in a room at decent efficiency is the Disney way. You make the entire room a shielded cavity, which can resonate with relatively low loss. Most people here don't like that method very much though.

[abstraxt]

Which jurisdiction issued the patent?
Real inventions are usually submitted for patents in multiple jurisdictions, such as the USPTO (US) and EPO (Europe).

The patent was issued by the USPTO.

[abstraxt]

If you're willing to have it operate at very low efficiency, with a huge transmitting coil. Sure it could work.

The only way to send wireless energy in a room at decent efficiency is the Disney way. You make the entire room a shielded cavity, which can resonate with relatively low loss. Most people here don't like that method very much though.

I’ve seen the Disney method and my extreme dislike of it aside, the patent is definitely not doing that. The patent and claimant make no claim on the space itself, and she is quite confident about its ability to work in a wide variety of scenarios.

[abstraxt]

There you go, thank me later for not investing.

Thank you for a hearty chuckle!

[langwadt]

I am not a lawyer, but at first glance I suspect that patent is unenforceable, and likely should never have been issued, since patents require the invention to be new, non-obvious, and not violate the laws of physics. The USPTO can (and IMHO should have, in this case) ask for a working model.

But yeah, I suspect this patent would be easy to defeat in court, in USA at least. (Though doing so would still cost many thousands of $ in lawyer fees.)

seems all they asked for was that the patent fee was paid

[schmitt trigger]

I had previously seen the Zimbabwean “inventor”, Maxwell Chikumbutso.

He is respected in Zimbabwe as the “African Nikola Tesla”, and any attempt to question the technical aspects of his invention or the methods to prove its feasibility, are simply dismissed as western jealousy.

[E-Design]

Agreed. I at least want to make the case that it doesn’t work, since she’s suing people on the basis that the invention does work and they’re “slandering her work.”

So isnt the burden of proof on her then that it indeed does work and so the slander would be valid?

[abstraxt]

I had previously seen the Zimbabwean “inventor”, Maxwell Chikumbutso.

He is respected in Zimbabwe as the “African Nikola Tesla”, and any attempt to question the technical aspects of his invention or the methods to prove its feasibility, are simply dismissed as western jealousy.

This is pretty close to what is happening over here, just replace Zimbabwe with Kuwait and Maxwell with Jenan.

[abstraxt]

Agreed. I at least want to make the case that it doesn’t work, since she’s suing people on the basis that the invention does work and they’re “slandering her work.”

So isnt the burden of proof on her then that it indeed does work and so the slander would be valid?

Partly yes, but things here work a little differently. Basically, since she’s already “recognised” (i.e. the state has awarded her on multiple occasions), and since she’s the one filing a “defamation” (not exactly the same here but close enough) lawsuit, the people being sued first have to prove they have reasonable claims against her before she’s then forced to prove her “invention” actually works. It’s innocent until proven guilty for her, guilty until proven innocent for the people she sues.

[Xena E]

Shame on the patent offices for letting such a complete load of garbage be awarded a patent.

No care was taken with the schematic to make it even look like it would work, it's nonsense.

First thing that jumps out is the connection of R4.





You'd at least think they'd have drawn a bridge circuit for that loop

At closer inspection every part of that patent is complete shit.

Patents application content validity is obviously not even considered anymore.

[abstraxt]

At closer inspection every part of that patent is complete shit.

It’s so bad I still don’t get how she made it this far.

I’m tempted to throw it into ngSpice and see what it actually does.

[Xena E]

It would do nothing interesting to simulate the circuit.

Both sets of Mosfets are directly across the supply. In the event hardware were built and they were switched there would be a big bang.

I suggest the patent should be reviewed, and repealed, but I wouldn't hold out much hope of any satisfactory outcome: they obviously don't care.

Regards
X

[showman]

Well it is just a common self-resonant ZVS/Mazzilli driver with couple of connections messed up in the schematic (but generally described correctly in the text). R4 should be a pulldown for Q1-Q4, D2 should go from R3 to drains of Q1-Q4 and D1 should go from R2 to drains of Q5-Q8, corrected schematic in the attachment. Also C5 is probably unnecessary or even detrimental and it's not ideal to parallel MOSFETs like that.

It is at best a fun DIY project which people have been doing since forever (for example the youtube video is from 12 years ago), and asking money for is of course being stupid/naive or trying to scam people. Same goes for the rest of the patent. My favorite part is her suggestion of using a freaking op-amp to amplify the received power and a graphite core for the receiving coil.

[tooki]

Just as an FYI, the USPTO will not present the same patent application to a given patent examiner again, to avoid bias. So a resubmission always goes to a new patent examiner. But the consequence is that one strategy for getting trash patents issued is to submit it again and again. Each time it gets denied, it exhausts a patent examiner who is a subject matter expert. Eventually you exhaust all of the subject matter experts, and it lands on the desk of an examiner who doesn’t know the field, and since they don’t understand why it won’t work, if it looks superficially plausible, they issue it. :/

[Xena E]

Well it is just a common self-resonant ZVS/Mazzilli driver with couple of connections messed up in the schematic

I will not dispute the intention, (edit: of using the ZVS topology), though if it's wrong it's wrong! And I doubt it would work as applied. however if a design or outline of a design is wrong as in this case the patent is void and easily challenged.

Also if it is "just a common circuit" it most definitely should not have been awarded a patent , as it is prior art.

As for the rest of it it's just a joke.

It's a shame that shit like this is allowed to gain validity by the patent offices, it's purpose only being to get on the investment merry-go-round.

Regards,
X

[abstraxt]

I suggest the patent should be reviewed, and repealed, but I wouldn't hold out much hope of any satisfactory outcome: they obviously don't care.

Regards
X

Despite having very little faith in it working out, I might give this a try.

Well it is just a common self-resonant ZVS/Mazzilli driver with couple of connections messed up in the schematic (but generally described correctly in the text).

The text might describe the circuit more correctly, but the moment you delve deeper into it, the reasons for using certain components are… odd.

Just as an FYI, the USPTO will not present the same patent application to a given patent examiner again, to avoid bias. So a resubmission always goes to a new patent examiner. But the consequence is that one strategy for getting trash patents issued is to submit it again and again.

My guess from the examiner’s rating is that is what ended up happening.

Also if it is "just a common circuit" it most definitely should not have been awarded a patent , as it is prior art.

As for the rest of it it's just a joke.

It's a shame that shit like this is allowed to gain validity by the patent offices, it's purpose only being to get on the investment merry-go-round.

Regards,
X

This is pretty much what it is unfortunately: a blatant money grab.

[TimFox]

It is hard for a second party to infringe a patent where the invention does not work.

[showman]

Also if it is "just a common circuit" it most definitely should not have been awarded a patent , as it is prior art.

Probably yes, but I don't know much about patent rules and laws. Interestingly the "Other Publications" section in the patent refers to Würth Elektronik app note "High Power Wireless Power Transferfor the Industrial Environment" from 2016, that is 2 years before the filing of the patent https://www.we-online.com/components/media/o109044v410%20AppNotes_ANP032_HighPowerWirelessPowerTransferForTheIndustrialEnvironment_EN.pdf

Guess what is on the second page. The same basic circuit.

[SiliconWizard]

That's fun. I wonder if the "inventor" got that from ChatGPT.