Someone is patenting our ideas!

[phil (admin)]

Hello everyone.

I was recently alerted, via E-Mail, to a patent application:

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20170266596&IDKey=05943D35F854&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D41%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526co1%3DAND%2526d%3DPG01%2526s1%3Dhuntley.IN.%2526OS%3DIN%2Fhuntley%2526RS%3DIN%2Fhuntley

This would be the Dustopper separator, available at Home Depot.

The unit, IMHO, is nothing more than a collection of the ideas expressed at this website/forum.

The man selling that product was in contact with me by E-Mail, writing this (8/5/2016):

Like many others out there, I am grateful for the initial work you did with your "baffle". That said, the next few sentences could have you cursing me, or perhaps partnering with me. It just depends on how you think, I suppose.

I made a Thein separator, including some of the changes that have appeared on other designs posted on the web. It worked reasonably well, but my attempts did not separate fines as well as I had hoped for. Next step was to buy the Oneida, which is a terrific separator, albeit a pain in the butt work with. So, armed with some experience, and some newly acquired knowledge on how cyclones work, I set about to make my own. My design gets is inspiration from yours, but I've added a couple subtle changes, and some not-so-subtle improvements in the shape of the chamber, which is significantly different. Basically, I wanted good fines separation; the ability to swallow an occasional large piece of debris;  good throughput; and for it to be difficult to others to make in case I set about the process of commercializing my design. This is what l I came up with:

https://vimeo.com/163336371

As you can see, it's performs incredibly well. So well, in fact, that I spent two months going back and forth with Oneida before they finally issued a rejection. I think they are selling well enough Dust Deputies that they don't feel all that threatened by my design. Then I went to Home Depot (still in play), who referred me to Emerson Electric, makers of Ridgid Tools. Emerson loves it, but doesn't believe there are enough buyers out there to justify adding a separator to their line. (maybe they'll copy and introduce anyways...like big companies have occasionally have done.) So, after 6 weeks of talking with Emerson, they too issues a rejection.

This morning the thought occurred to me that it may be in our mutual interest to talk. I would like to know more about why you did not prosecute your patent application. Was it prior art, cost, lack of an interested buyer, something different? You seem like a bright and fair guy, and I am hopeful we can talk openly about your experience, lessons learned, etc. My goal is still to commercialize this product. Since you were part of the initial inspiration, I am open to sharing some of the rewards should we be successful in that endeavor. This thought is very fresh in my mind, so I do not have particulars yet. I thought we would talk first to see how we match in terms of ethics, integrity, desired outcomes, and more, in hopes of finding a fit. (not having one!)

I used to live in Okauchee (on Okauchee Lake), about 30 miles west of Milwaukee. for 18 months, I worked at GE Medical Systems' headquarters as a marketing manager for their Nuclear Imaging Product Line.

So...are you interested in having a conversation?

I'd like for you guys to consider writing the United States Patent Office, and telling them to reject this patent application based on work prior work published here.  Any specifics in terms of his claims and specific threads will help the patent examiner reject the application.

Edit:  You CAN NOT E-Mail the patent office, apparently they don't accept protests sent via E-Mail.

Here is information that can be used to file a protest:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1901.html#d0e193937

[retired2]

Phil,

I will send an email to the patent office, but it won't be immediately, my wife has some unresolved medical problems. 

I don't know what improvements this guy has made to his design because he intentionally doesn't reveal those details.  However, for a brief moment when he lifts his unit off the bucket it is clear that at the heart of his device is the Thien baffle, copied shamelessly.  Without that baffle his device doesn't do squat! 

[phil (admin)]

Phil,

I will send an email to the patent office, but it won't be immediately, my wife has some unresolved medical problems. 

I don't know what improvements this guy has made to his design because he intentionally doesn't reveal those details.  However, for a brief moment when he lifts his unit off the bucket it is clear that at the heart of his device is the Thien baffle, copied shamelessly.  Without that baffle his device doesn't do squat!

I never contacted the guy, having the opinion at the time that his work was based entirely on the work of others (myself and others here).

The circular cross-section aspect he was claiming, should make the unit perform less-well on fines, as it would induce a 2nd rotation of everything above the baffle and allow the fines to approach the outlet tube during each of those rotations.  We want to keep fines AWAY from the outlet tube.

Good luck on your wife's medical problems, I'll keep you guys in my thoughts.

[deguacas]

This crook not only copied your ideas but made a very lousy effort at making a decent product (according to the reviews that his "stolen" product gets.)
He should be ashamed of stealing other people's work and claim it his own. (someone did it to me once... lost a small fortune...).
Already emailed the office of patents & Bcc to you:
Here it is my best effort.

"I strongly urge you to reject this patent application.

The item in question is based on works previously developed and published by Phil Thien.

I personally have known the above to be true and have known and followed the work and efforts of Phil Thien for more than fifteen years.

Case in point; With the implied permission of Phil Thien, I have, based on his developments, made, -over fifteen years ago-, a dust collector that I'm still using and I resent that someone else is trying to cash-in on his effort and intellect.

I kindly request you to respect Phil Thien's efforts and hard work by declining the application for this patent.


If I can be of any further assistance, please fill free to contact me at;

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX "

[RBOETTCHER]

Phil, I believe you filed for a patent, did you not? If so, even if not granted, the application would be considered prior art I think.

I will also send an email to the patent office as others have.
Thanks for all you have done.

[TIMMYG]

I borrowed some of the text from this string and sent the following and cc'd Phil:

To whom it may concern,

"I strongly urge you to reject  Patent Application US 2017/0266596 A1

The item in question is based on works previously developed and published by Phil Thien.

I personally have known the above to be true and have known and followed the work and efforts of Phil Thien for more than Ten years.

Case in point; With the implied permission of Phil Thien, I have, based on his developments, made, -over ten years ago-, a dust collector that I'm still using and I resent that someone else is trying to cash-in on his effort and intellect.

I kindly request you to respect Phil Thien's efforts and hard work by declining the application for this patent.

Please see
http://www.jpthien.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=q1jiqk3nf5mnkq37m368s5sp25&;  In general and:
http://www.jpthien.com/smf/index.php?topic=1311.0 For more specifics  on why this patent should be rejected based on prior work


If I can be of any further assistance, please fill free to contact me at;

XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

[KC7CN]

Phil,

I just emailed a letter to the patent office as you suggested.  Here is a copy-paste of my email, sure hopes it helps!


Wed 1/23/2019, 3:13 PM

Hello,

RE:  Patent #: US20170266596

I am concerned about the validity of this patent application!  It appears to be a collection of ideas and concepts taken from Phil Thien's dust separator design, that has been in existence for many years!  I have personally made two different separators, based on his design!  Please check out my two separator projects for reference when considering a the above indicated patent:

Don Stanley (KC7CN) posts of two separators.

Shop Vac Phil Thien Inspired Separator - detailed construction photos

Although the applicant for this patent may have made improvements to the design, it still appears to be based on Phil Thien's original design.  In all sincerity, I would be very disappointed to see this patent approved!

Sincerely

Don Stanley

[phil (admin)]

Thank you but you're going to get an automatic response indicating they don't do anything with E-Mail.

I've snail-mailed them evidence of prior art.

The work is all in the public domain, I didn't receive a patent and certainly others have contributed improvements.

I'm honestly suspicious and question the motivations of anyone attempting to patent the work at this point.

[KC7CN]

Bummer!  I haven't received an automatic response yet, but considering the Government shut down that may be expected!

On a side note, whenever the subject of patents comes up, I think of the one for the Intermittent Windshield Wiper.  An interesting story if you're not familiar with it.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

I tried!

-Don

[Mikoturos]

 >:(   >:(   >:(
Well this really pisses me off!
I stumbled across Phil's Thien Baffle design years ago and I've been following the discussions intermittently.
Learning about this Intellectual Property Theft matter spurred me to finally register -- and I'm sorry I'm six months late coming to the party.

I see that the Dustopper is still being sold at HD.  At $40 each the guy's making a pretty good profit off a molded plastic version of your lid-and-baffle concept.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/High-Efficiency-Dust-Separator-12-in-Dia-with-2-5-in-Hose-36-in-Long-HD12/302643445?keyword=dustopper&semanticToken=d03t0003011_20190704183433844802_r8qq+d03t0003011+%3E++cnn%3A%7B0%3A0%7D+cnr%3A%7B7%3A1%7D+cnb%3A%7B0%3A0%7D+cnv%3A%7B0%3A0%7D+vc%3A%7B1%7D+st%3A%7Bdustopper%7D%3Ast+oos%3A%7B0%3A1%7D+dln%3A%7B563012%7D+tgr%3A%7BEnriched+Product+Info%7D+qu%3A%7Bdustopper%7D%3Aqu

So what happened to Huntley's patent application?  Is it still under consideration/review?  Was it rejected?  The description on the HD site says it's pending, but they don't seem to get around to updating their descriptions that frequently.

Phil, did you ever file your own design for copyright/patent consideration?

Decades ago, when I built a label-application system for my boss, he suggested we patent it.  I looked into the matter but found that, since there wasn't more than a 25% substantial difference from the main parts I bought off-the-shelf, I didn't have a device we could patent.  Huntley's drawings look rather different than the pictures on this forum, but it might be possible to argue that the intake/exhaust ports are superficial rather than substantial changes -- in which case he hasn't improved or changed your fundamental idea.

Anyway, it's been six months; can you update us on the status of this situation?    If necessary, I'll be happy to send a letter to the US Patent office on real paper.

--Mik

[prstone]

I saw the Dustopper at Home Depot, opened the box and confirmed that they had ripper off your work.

I want to help Phil Thien put his design into production and get it on the market.
I am a retired research engineer from Boeing. I have more than 50 inventions, 12 granted patents and 12 patents pending. I have owned my own manufacturing business and have taken multuple products from concept to market.

All I ask in return is a big smile.

That said, most investors will not invest in a new business without a patent or a patent pending.
If the clown that ripped you off did not disclose to his investors that he knew about your prior art, he could go to jail for securities fraud.

How shall we communicate Phil?

[Rio Vista Andy]

This type of separator is not completely new. It's application for woodworking waste handling is rather new. I can say this as I spent the last 30 years in the industrial cleaning business involving very large airmovers, up to 10,000CFM@26"Hg vacuum.
The Guzzler company had what they called a Cyclonic Ring that was placed at the onboard end of the inlet line in the rear of their Guzzler trucks. This ring looks very very simular the the Thiel Baffel.

[WoodCzar]

Geez,

I just saw this guy`s video.

Besides the fact he stole the whole concept from this very site, he must have got a huge amount of help in getting this to the Home Depot shelves as fast as it did.

Besides, I wouldn`t trust anyone that lays paper down to protect his wood shop floor from sawdust. 

Maybe it can be looked at this way? .......... Not only can this guy get sued now, but Home Depot?

[Anonymous2020]

The patent application is under examination, and the guy is going to get a patent.  Some discussion over a prior patent application by Phil Thien himself.  Just skimmed it, but it looks like a requirement of his patent will be a slot in the plate that is tapered or not uniform in width.

[Kelly Bellis]

@Phil - So sorry to read about Tom Huntley's intellectual embezzlement, though I'm not surprised somebody would try and get away with this, duh. This guy is a real duh, he takes the cake of all duhs. He's a duhs topper! He even named his product after himself!!

I found some additional information, though am reluctant to add any more salt into the wound by even bringing it up.  However, maybe there's a ray of sunshine if you count the number of times the word 'rejection' gets used. Wonder if Home Depot has learned that yet, duh. And don't forget to factor old Tommy has been paying Brooks Kushman for their services for the past four years. Ouch, I bet that left a mark, while its hole only gets deeper.

Application Number 15/465,051 - Transaction History
Date    Transaction Description
04-06-2020    Electronic Review
04-06-2020    Email Notification
04-06-2020    Mail Non-Final Rejection
04-01-2020    Non-Final Rejection
01-30-2020    Affidavit(s) (Rule 131 or 132) or Exhibit(s) Received
02-01-2020    Date Forwarded to Examiner
01-30-2020    Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
02-01-2020    Disposal for a RCE / CPA / R129
01-30-2020    Request for Extension of Time - Granted
01-30-2020    Workflow - Request for RCE - Begin
01-28-2020    Email Notification
01-28-2020    Mail Applicant Initiated Interview Summary
01-22-2020    Interview Summary - Applicant Initiated - Telephonic
01-22-2020    Interview Summary- Applicant Initiated
08-30-2019    Electronic Review
08-30-2019    Email Notification
08-30-2019    Mail Final Rejection (PTOL - 326)
08-28-2019    Final Rejection
07-18-2019    Date Forwarded to Examiner
07-10-2019    Response after Non-Final Action
04-10-2019    Electronic Review
04-10-2019    Email Notification
04-10-2019    Mail Non-Final Rejection
04-04-2019    Non-Final Rejection
04-04-2019    Information Disclosure Statement considered
04-04-2019    Information Disclosure Statement considered
04-04-2019    Information Disclosure Statement considered
03-23-2019    Date Forwarded to Examiner
03-18-2019    Response to Election / Restriction Filed
01-18-2019    Electronic Review
01-18-2019    Email Notification
01-18-2019    Mail Restriction Requirement
01-12-2019    Restriction/Election Requirement
08-28-2018    Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
06-08-2018    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
06-08-2018    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
11-28-2017    Preliminary Amendment
05-30-2017    Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
05-30-2017    New or Additional Drawing Filed
09-22-2017    Email Notification
09-21-2017    Application ready for PDX access by participating foreign offices
09-21-2017    PG-Pub Issue Notification
06-21-2017    Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
06-21-2017    Application Dispatched from OIPE
06-01-2017    Email Notification
05-31-2017    Sent to Classification Contractor
05-31-2017    FITF set to YES - revise initial setting
05-30-2017    Patent Term Adjustment - Ready for Examination
06-01-2017    Application Is Now Complete
06-01-2017    Filing Receipt - Updated
05-30-2017    Additional Application Filing Fees
05-30-2017    Applicant has submitted new drawings to correct Corrected Papers problems
05-30-2017    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
05-30-2017    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-06-2017    Email Notification
04-06-2017    Notice of Incomplete Reply
04-04-2017    Additional Application Filing Fees
04-04-2017    Applicant has submitted new drawings to correct Corrected Papers problems
03-29-2017    Electronic Review
03-29-2017    Email Notification
03-29-2017    Email Notification
03-29-2017    Filing Receipt
03-29-2017    Corrected Paper
03-21-2017    PTO/SB/69-Authorize EPO Access to Search Results
03-21-2017    Applicants have given acceptable permission for participating foreign
03-27-2017    Applicant Has Filed a Verified Statement of Small Entity Status in Compliance with 37 CFR 1.27
03-23-2017    Cleared by OIPE CSR
03-21-2017    IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
03-21-2017    ENTITY STATUS SET TO UNDISCOUNTED (INITIAL DEFAULT SETTING OR STATUS CHANGE)
03-21-2017    Initial Exam Team nn



As a better late than never tactic, overt granting of a license to the public of your art, the schema afforded under the Creative Commons might possibly offer some form of estoppel, and maybe you have already looked into this, but totally understand if you're just fed up with the whole thing. Just know that there are thousands of Thien Separator users that support you and your generous sharing of your ideas with the public.

Be well and stay safe.

Kind regards,

Kelly