Dr.Colin Ross got a Patent for his eye beams

[Roma]

U.S. Patent Approves Patent for Dr. Colin Ross

Written by Marketwire
Wednesday, 13 October 2010 08:25
DALLAS, TX October 12, 2010

Noted psychiatrist and author Colin A. Ross, M.D. (http://www.facebook.com/l/4ffd21Yo-J...w.rossinst.com), whose research into a new science and medicine focused on the human body's electromagnetic field is described in his book, Human Energy Fields (ISBN-13: 978-0-9821851-0-0), has received approval for Patent #7,806,527 from the U.S. Patent Office (http://www.facebook.com/l/4ffd2g7CrT...;www.uspto.gov). The patent can be accessed by clicking here

Dr. Ross' device can detect the brain waves emitted through the eye using an electrode that makes no physical contact with the body. He calls his invention an Electromagnetic Beam Detection System, the result of his discovery that the eye emits electromagnetic energy that he calls an "eyebeam."

"We will now develop a prototype device that can detect a human stare from a greater distance, similar to a motion detector or sound sensor," said Dr. Ross. "Such a device could be used to turn on a light, or any other electrical device, from a computer to a garage door opener to an entry system. It would work like a clapper light activated by clapping your hands, except that the signal would be the electromagnetic energy beam emerging through your eyes."

Once a working prototype is available, Dr. Ross will identify a manufacturing partner.

Dr. Ross proposes that the sense of being stared at was selected for during predator-prey interactions. A gazelle that could subliminally detect the stare of a lion would feel a sense of danger or threat, would run away, and would have a better chance of surviving. In humans, the sense of being stared at is unreliable but nevertheless is a common experience. The new technology in Patent #7,806,527 makes it possible to study the sense of being stared at scientifically for the first time.

A second Patent Pending by Dr. Ross uses the same electrode technology to construct a Whole Body Electromagnetic Scanner that would be like an MRI machine, except that it would scan the electromagnetic field of the body to detect and track disease at an early stage. A recently published paper, "Simultaneous Variation in the Heart and Brain Electrical Fields," (http://www.facebook.com/l/4ffd200zQF...cal_Fields.pdf) by Dr. Ross provides the first data on scanning the heart and brain electrical fields simultaneously. Dr. Ross expects this line of research to lead eventually to the Whole Body Electromagnetic Scanner.

A video about the patent featuring Dr. Ross is posted at http://www.facebook.com/l/4ffd2F9Y8t...?v=Sf9AJCLbaWw.

[PixyMisa]

Someone needs to shoot the Patent Office and put it out of its misery.

[Myriad]

A link directly to the patent, without going through some Facebook page: here.

Given the simplicity of the claimed device (supposedly realizable using inexpensive off-the-shelf high-impedance electrodes) the current unavailability of a working prototype is difficult to explain.

Also, the patent expresses the belief that increasing the input impedance of the sensor decreases its sensitivity to noise:

Quote:

Alternatively, the detection device 3 may be a high (or ultra-high) impedance EEG electrode. A high impedance EEG electrode may have an input impedance from about 10.sup.7.OMEGA. up to approximately 10.sup.15.OMEGA.. The noise floors of high impedance EEG electrodes may be on the order of approximately 70 .eta.V Hz.sup.-1/2 at 1 Hz. Due at least in part to the low noise levels achievable with high impedance EEG electrodes, a LOS beam detection system 100 may require only modest, if any at all, electromagnetic shielding for the enclosure 1, even at the highest levels of sensitivity, when the detection device 3 comprises one or more high impedance EEG electrodes.

He seems to be conflating the "noise floor" of the device (the minimum achievable internally generated noise for a particular implementation) with its sensitivity to environmental noise. Good luck using an enclosure with "modest, if any at all" electromagnetic shielding, unless you're intending to discover that eyes emit AM radio signals as well as 60Hz (50 Hz in Europe) sine waves.

There is of course no actual beam to detect anyhow, but the eyes do have a charge (the retina is polarized negative relative to the cornea) and do move, and in principle any moving charge creates electromagnetic waves that can be detected and measured. That's (more or less) the basis of EOG (Electro-oculogram) recording in the polysomnography performed every day in sleep clinics. Because it is the movement that is being detected, staring in any one specific direction generates zero EOG signal.

The patent does not appear to advance the art in any way at all, except to merely speculate that if the electrodes were located farther away from the eye, with sufficient (unspecified) sensitivity and adequate (unspecified) shielding, and perhaps sufficient (unspecified) processing with appropriate (unspecified) algorithms, the direction of gaze could conceivably be detected.

As a close analogy, imagine attempting to use electrodes to detect the direction a AA battery a few inches away is pointing, or to trigger a response when the + end of the battery is aimed directly toward a detector. It's technically possible, but doing so has no practical use and proves nothing new about how batteries or electrodes work. For instance, for assistance of physically disabled persons, detecting eye movements and direction of gaze using cameras is much more practical, versatile, and farther advanced.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[casebro]

Darn, Myriad. I guess I'll have to stick with my Clapper until those bugs get worked out.

[not daSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Myriad

He seems to be conflating ...

He conflates a lot of things. Assuming he is the same Colin Ross who has posted about this subject in these forums, he doesn't have the first clue how electroencephalography works (and claims such knowledge isn't necessary). Like many woos, he is ill-equipped to recognize when events are mundane.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Someone needs to shoot the Patent Office and put it out of its misery.

Before you do that, you need to check out what was actually patented, as opposed to what someone says was patented. His legal protections are defined by his claims, the main one of which is:

Quote:

1. A system for detecting an electromagnetic beam comprising: an enclosure configured to facilitate visual access for an eye of a body and containing a detecting device comprising at least one electrode configured to produce an output corresponding to an electromagnetic field produced by the body and emanating from the eye of the body; wherein the detecting device is a non-contacting electrode, wherein the non-contacting electrode detects the electromagnetic field without making substantial contact with a surface of the body; a processing device configured to receive the output from the detecting device; and a communication device configured to provide feedback communication corresponding to the output from the detecting device.

What this means is, if you did have beams coming from your eyes, you could detect them with this device. Of course, it says nothing at all about whether or not those beams exist. This is one of the most common dodges these guys use to get around the woo aspects of their ideas.

That they can do this is the fault of overly-permissive court decisions, not the patent office. If you don't like it, petition the legislature to toughen up the utility requirements of the patent act, so we can throw out all those bad court decisions.

[technoextreme]

Quote:

What this means is, if you did have beams coming from your eyes, you could detect them with this device. Of course, it says nothing at all about whether or not those beams exist. This is one of the most common dodges these guys use to get around the woo aspects of their ideas.

I actually talked to Dr. Novella about this because he had offered to help test devices that I helped build along with Doug Messer to the specifications of the patent. As Myriad all ready pointed out that was bloody dam well hard considering the fact it was vague and not exactly something that would insprie confidence in someone who has a degree in electrical engineering like myself. The interesting fact that I have to add is that the person who built the electrodes that Ross used was also skeptical that it would work.

From a biological standpoint that speck of truth that I would not flat out call it fantasy. Bone is actually quite good at attenuating brainwaves. Dr. Novella actually said that when your skull is cracked you actually get an abnormally large EEG. Now where this comes into play is that the bone in the eye socket is thinner than your skull which means that your EEG signal around your eye should be stonger. Does this mean that Ross's idea is a good one? Well not as far as I can tell. As I had originally pointed out and what Myriad also did is that technically speaking you now have to contend with the artifacts due to movement of the eye. In fact if you go back to my originally posts I was calling him a clever scammer because the EOG also corresponds to the same frequency range of the EEG. You can't just filter it out because well its the same frequency range.

Quote:

He seems to be conflating the "noise floor" of the device (the minimum achievable internally generated noise for a particular implementation) with its sensitivity to environmental noise. Good luck using an enclosure with "modest, if any at all" electromagnetic shielding, unless you're intending to discover that eyes emit AM radio signals as well as 60Hz (50 Hz in Europe) sine waves.

Isn't environmental noise typically handled through really well implemented notch filters in these devices? I've seen my grandpa get an EKG before and those electrodes were disposible AG/AGCL.

Quote:

He conflates a lot of things. Assuming he is the same Colin Ross who has posted about this subject in these forums, he doesn't have the first clue how electroencephalography works (and claims such knowledge isn't necessary). Like many woos, he is ill-equipped to recognize when events are mundane.

Its him.

[jaydeehess]

Wholly carp!

This is not all that different from the woo I invented in one of those threads where you are asked to start your own.

It went like this;

Biometric identifiers are all the rage and people do forget their PIN numbers all the time. A California company decided to develop a simple retinal scanner for use at automated bank machines. Imagine, never having to remember a PIN again, just look into the eyepiece!

Of course there were problems and one of them was noise in the signal between scanner and digitizer. An engineer was trying to filter out this noise when he realized that there was a pattern in that background that was unrelated to the retinal patterns but was related to the individual that was looking into the eyepiece. The same company was also looking at using DNA markers for more security conscious customers and therefore they had a DNA profile of each test subject as well.
It turned out that the scanner was having its detector beam scattered in a specific way by the DNA in the cells of the retina itself and that it was possible to get a complete DNA profile simply via the retinal scans after approximately 25 runs of the scanner.
Banks are now looking at this for two reasons, first the ATM security aspects, and secondly , by gaining a full DNA profile of their customers they can sell this information to health insurance companies.


Its got it all, big bad nasty scientists, big bad nasty bankers, big bad insurance companies, and finally a completely made up technology couched in a real one that anyone who watches movies has seen employed!
Go spread the word!

[Soapy Sam]

"Pluck it out!" I say.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Isn't environmental noise typically handled through really well implemented notch filters in these devices? I've seen my grandpa get an EKG before and those electrodes were disposible AG/AGCL.

Partially. High and low filters are used, but more critical is the fact that all normal eXg measurements (ekg, eog, emg, eeg) are differential measurements. What is amplified is not the potential at one electrode, but the difference between the potentials at two electrodes. Typically one of the electrodes for each recorded channel is considered a neutral reference; A1 and A2 (below the ear behind the ear lobes) or Cz (center forehead) are commonly used as references for eeg and eog. Most noise sources generate the same noise on both inputs, so the differential amplifier (designed for good common-mode rejection) ignores it.

However, this works only if the skin contact for both electrodes is of good quality, that is, LOW impedance. Ultimately all an eXg electrode does is make electrical contact between a piece of wire and the subject's skin. The complexity comes in the details, such as the use of a conductive electrolyte gel to fill the (convoluted, on a microscopic scale) spaces between the metal contact and the skin, and choices of materials to prevent the combination of metal, skin, sweat, and electrolyte from acting as a battery, and galvanically generating DC voltages that can cause problems for the amplifiers.

Technically, the "electrodes" in Ross's patent aren't being used as electrodes at all, because they do not make a current-passing electrical contact with anything. (Unless maybe the eye beam is supposed to be an actual electron discharge, like in a vacuum tube?) If what they're detecting is supposed to be electromagnetic radiation of some sort, then it would be more accurate to call them antennas.

The patent also does not describe any differential amplification. And "high-impedance electrode" is almost (but not quite) an oxymoron. There are such things as high-impedance electrodes of various types, but they are generally used when an application tolerates an electrode being of high impedance, such as EEG using very advanced amplifiers that tolerate easier (but higher impedance) electrode attachment methods. High impedance in an electrode is rarely if ever inherently more desirable especially for any sort of data acquisition use. To make any sort of sense of that part of Ross's patent I have to be charitable and read "high impedance electrode" as "electrode connected to a high impedance (detector or amplifier) input" and that only helps a little. The overall design still makes little to no sense even if the eyes did emit electromagnetic beams!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[INRM]

I had a feeling you could read electric activity off the brain much easier through the eyes. It's one of the few areas where the brain is not covered by the skull.

[not daSkeptic]

Originally Posted by Myriad

What is amplified is not the potential at one electrode, but the difference between the potentials at two electrodes.

Thus even if the "floating" lead remains constant, any change in the reference would still generate output. According to Dr. Ross' prior statements on this subject, the configuration he uses has the reference electrode in physical contact with the body. I'd be curious to see a recording of both signals against the amplifier's ground.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Someone needs to shoot the Patent Office and put it out of its misery.

Please cite the exact part of patent law which you believe the patent office screwed up on.

[bozman]

Hasn't Superman been shooting beams out of his eyes for something like 60 years now?

[littleroundman]

There's a "trick" involved in this, but it has nothing to do with either Dr Ross or the Patent Office.

The "trick" is people assuming a patent does anything but protect the patent holders' rights.

The patent office doesn't test whether the product works or even investigate the theory behind the product

Most people simply don't realize how little value there is in holding a patent.

Dr Ross' creation is by no means the craziest patented product around, there are even websites devoted to crazy patents:

http://www.crazypatents.com/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Beady

Please cite the exact part of patent law which you believe the patent office screwed up on.

I suspect most people would say Section 101:

Quote:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The word "useful" has historically been interpreted to mean that the patented subject matter must do something practical, and must actually do that thing which the applicant says it does. However, this has been substantially weakened over the years, with the courts finding that "economic usefulness", that is, "Will people pay for it?", is sufficient to meet the usefulness requirement. The notion is, if the thing didn't actually work as advertised, people wouldn't keep buying it, would they?

I'm sure most of us here can spot the flaw in that argument.


Of course, based on Myriad's post above, I'd be more inclined to say he violates Section 112:

Quote:

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

That is, he's failed to describe it in a sufficiently clear and complete manner, since it seems there are aspects of the description that Myriad had to guess the meaning of. That's a no-no, but it's also one that's harder for the examiner to spot, if he's not a working engineer.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by littleroundman

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

Here's the thing: if you look at most of those listed on this page, they're stupid ideas, but they're stupid ideas that would probably work, were anyone actually daft enough to try them. A patent doesn't have to be for a good idea, just a new one. There are some legitimate complaints there about some ideas being obvious, or already known in the art (method of exercising a cat, anyone? Method of swinging on a swing?), but that points out a completely different problem with the patent office.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Partially. High and low filters are used, but more critical is the fact that all normal eXg measurements (ekg, eog, emg, eeg) are differential measurements. What is amplified is not the potential at one electrode, but the difference between the potentials at two electrodes. Typically one of the electrodes for each recorded channel is considered a neutral reference; A1 and A2 (below the ear behind the ear lobes) or Cz (center forehead) are commonly used as references for eeg and eog. Most noise sources generate the same noise on both inputs, so the differential amplifier (designed for good common-mode rejection) ignores it.

However, this works only if the skin contact for both electrodes is of good quality, that is, LOW impedance. Ultimately all an eXg electrode does is make electrical contact between a piece of wire and the subject's skin. The complexity comes in the details, such as the use of a conductive electrolyte gel to fill the (convoluted, on a microscopic scale) spaces between the metal contact and the skin, and choices of materials to prevent the combination of metal, skin, sweat, and electrolyte from acting as a battery, and galvanically generating DC voltages that can cause problems for the amplifiers.

Technically, the "electrodes" in Ross's patent aren't being used as electrodes at all, because they do not make a current-passing electrical contact with anything. (Unless maybe the eye beam is supposed to be an actual electron discharge, like in a vacuum tube?) If what they're detecting is supposed to be electromagnetic radiation of some sort, then it would be more accurate to call them antennas.

The patent also does not describe any differential amplification. And "high-impedance electrode" is almost (but not quite) an oxymoron. There are such things as high-impedance electrodes of various types, but they are generally used when an application tolerates an electrode being of high impedance, such as EEG using very advanced amplifiers that tolerate easier (but higher impedance) electrode attachment methods. High impedance in an electrode is rarely if ever inherently more desirable especially for any sort of data acquisition use. To make any sort of sense of that part of Ross's patent I have to be charitable and read "high impedance electrode" as "electrode connected to a high impedance (detector or amplifier) input" and that only helps a little. The overall design still makes little to no sense even if the eyes did emit electromagnetic beams!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ooo I'm an idiot. I forgot its a differential signal. Which now makes his device even more confusing because he still is using a differential signal if you read his paper. Would you believe me if I said that I knew about 80% of that? I just forgot about it.

[Myriad]

I have to modify and retract some of the things I said above about electrodes. While what I said accurately describes conventional EEG electrodes as are still most commonly used, active dry electrodes (which the Ross patent does specify) are a somewhat different beast.

Here is an early paper about active dry electrodes. Though undoubtedly behind the most recent technology, it covers the basic principles well, and the full paper is viewable.

The "active" part of an active dry electrode is that an amplifier is built into the electrode. Thus I was partially correct in interpreting Ross's "impedance" statements as applying to the input impedance of an amplifier rather than of the electrode contact itself; what I was missing is that the amplifier in question is built into the electrode; its output then plugs into a regular EEG (differential) amplifier. This method substitutes a low-impedance output of the electrode's amplifier for a low-impedance connection with the skin. The electrode is capacitively coupled with the skin, rather than making any direct contact.

The problem is that capacitive coupling: the capacitance of a capacitor depends on the size of the charged surfaces and the distance between them, decreasing with the latter. An "electrode" 10mm square at a distance of 100 mm from the skin would couple with the skin with a capacitance on the order of 10 attofarads (10^-17 F). To avoid filtering out all the frequencies of interest in EEG and EOG detection, the input impedance of the amplifier would then have to be higher than about 10²⁰ ohms. That's way beyond the range mentioned in the patent, and beyond any feasible range.

(This is also directly related to the reason why some unknown means of sensing another person's brain waves at a distance cannot provide a plausible explanation for ESP.)

But, I now understand a few details better: why the patent mentions impedances in the context it does, why Dr. Ross was having special electrodes made for him for EOG use, and why the person who made those electrodes doubted the patented scheme would work (as reported above by technoextreme).

Respectfully,
Myriad

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Ooo I'm an idiot. I forgot its a differential signal. Which now makes his device even more confusing because he still is using a differential signal if you read his paper. Would you believe me if I said that I knew about 80% of that? I just forgot about it.

Its all very interesting. What Myriad said, that is.
I had always thought that the EEG pads were used as antennae, not as actual physical electrical contact electrodes.

Live and learn.

[INRM]

Well, what substance is transparent and can block electrical activity as well as a skull can?

INRM
Hope I don't disappear or something

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by INRM

INRM
Hope I don't disappear or something

If your skull is transparent, I suggest that you've already disappeared.....

[INRM]

Horatius,

You idiot, I'm not talking about my skull being transparent, what I'm talking about is if brain activity can be much more easily read through areas that are not covered by the skull, what can cover those areas up and still allow a person to see through

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I suspect most people would say Section 101:

The word "useful" has historically been interpreted to mean that the patented subject matter must do something practical, and must actually do that thing which the applicant says it does. However, this has been substantially weakened over the years, with the courts finding that "economic usefulness", that is, "Will people pay for it?", is sufficient to meet the usefulness requirement. The notion is, if the thing didn't actually work as advertised, people wouldn't keep buying it, would they?

I'm sure most of us here can spot the flaw in that argument.

Yep, but whether something is usefulness is very hard to see prior to the invention entering the market. And really, is that what we want the examiner's to be spending their limited time on?

Quote:

Of course, based on Myriad's post above, I'd be more inclined to say he violates Section 112:

That is, he's failed to describe it in a sufficiently clear and complete manner, since it seems there are aspects of the description that Myriad had to guess the meaning of. That's a no-no, but it's also one that's harder for the examiner to spot, if he's not a working engineer.

All very true. Most 112 rejections have to do with claim language that can be misleading. The type of 112 violation you clearly point out would be more of a litigation issue in the US.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Beady

Please cite the exact part of patent law which you believe the patent office screwed up on.

While I agree with Horatius's points regarding the validity of the patent, I don't think these are the types of issues that examiner's should be spending their time on. There is limited negative impact on the public if a patent is granted to a worthless or unworkable invention. In contrast, a patent granted on technology that is obvious or where the claims are overly broad can do real damage in the marketplace.

Therefore, it seems the PTO is reasonably set up to avoid the real damage and does not focus as much on the low damage issues. That being said, I have seen some great PTO work on perpetual motion machines, time travel devices, and warp drives. It seems the examiners enjoy themselves at times.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by INRM

Horatius,

You idiot, I'm not talking about my skull being transparent, what I'm talking about is if brain activity can be much more easily read through areas that are not covered by the skull, what can cover those areas up and still allow a person to see through

Oh, I see, you're worried that someone will read your thoughts through your eye-sockets, then, right? Well, glass is a pretty good insulator, and is also transparent. Go go see your eye doctor and get some glasses.

On second though, make that goggles. Your thoughts might leak out the edges with glasses.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

While I agree with Horatius's points regarding the validity of the patent, I don't think these are the types of issues that examiner's should be spending their time on. There is limited negative impact on the public if a patent is granted to a worthless or unworkable invention. In contrast, a patent granted on technology that is obvious or where the claims are overly broad can do real damage in the marketplace.

Therefore, it seems the PTO is reasonably set up to avoid the real damage and does not focus as much on the low damage issues. That being said, I have seen some great PTO work on perpetual motion machines, time travel devices, and warp drives. It seems the examiners enjoy themselves at times.

This is an issue I've dealt with a bit. The problem is, you seem to be limiting the definition of "damage in the marketplace" to only patents that would unfairly restrict a competitor from practicing an art that is already (or should be) public-domain. The problem with patents that lack utility, at least in some cases, is that the patentees are not using them in the traditional manner - that is, using them to restrict competitors. Often, they're being used as marketing tools, to drum up sales, or investments. The notion is, if they got a patent, their device/method/whatever "must work". That doesn't harm the competition (at least, not directly), but it does harm the customer and investor base.

How to solve this problem is a puzzler though. As you say, it is a lot of work to refuse a patent on the basis of a lack of utility, and those who are inclined to use their patents in this way will almost always fight such a dismissal tooth and nail, which only adds to the problem.