The concept of using all that road surface as a gigantic solar sell for the electric vehicles driving on it is at least 40 years old.

I remember reading a detailed description in a story published in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact Magazine back in the early seventies. I’ve always wondered why no one in all that time did anything with this obvious idea.

I would never consciously hurt or cast aspersions on anybody.

I don?t want to pee on anyone?s parade…

Yet pee you do.

Neither the super-cap nor solar cells in roads. It’s all, er, applesauce.

Geez, you’re trying to piss all over someone’s 1980’s parade in favor of an incrental advance! You seem to be setting aside all prior art. May be worthwhile — for the limited uses: the power density of this or any capacitor doesn’t get anywhere near that of a battery — but it’s not going to revolutionize anything.

I seem to recall something about patents having to be “non-obvious to those skilled in the art” or something along those lines.

A high-school kid just proved that this particular invention is obvious to persons NOT skilled in the art. Patent application rejected.

Done.

Mike I have to be honest here man it appears that the company came up with a good product, but then she has managed to make it have even better properties by making a different device/making the device differently (specifically it appears she increased the cap of the device). Bottom line is, she probably does infringe some patents (and you’re probably not even able to find them in a search), but then again, the patents themselves probably never enabled her device/method (they probably only enabled lesser devices) so they may well be invalid on enablement grounds if they try to enforce them against her. Though that takes money to assert and defend.

Hello, this is Nick Cameron from Solaroad Technologies. This article was written in a terribly wrong light. Solaroad Technologies encourages innovation in the science world. The fact that the author of this article is intentionally trying to give us a black eye by saying we were bullying this girl is absurd. The employees of Solaroad and Retti et al have witnessed firsthand the blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into trying to bring our products to commercialization. We have literally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars filing our intellectual properties, and we are simply trying to protect ourselves, as well as our investors from people viewing the patent work, and picking off pieces of it. Perhaps this young lady did come up with this herself and congratulations to her if that is the case, that is very high level science for a young person. The issue is the fact that as a company and as individuals we have continually made sacrifices to maintain our intellectual property. Retti has dedicated his life to this work, and the fact that he is trying to protect his life’s work is commendable in my book. Don’t think for a second that if General Electric had patented this and the same article came out about this young lady that there would not be legal action taken. We have everything on the line here, and we have to protect what is ours. To those people who don’t like it, to hell with you. We will continue to take a stand against people that we believe are infringing on our intellectual property. Whether they are young or old, companies, or individuals, the patent office should be checked before announcements are made about “new groundbreaking technologies” when they are in existence and have been.

The author of this article seems intent on trying to make us look like terrible people. If the author knew about patents he would know that patent applications still warrant protection in the courts. Patent interference occurs when an individual claims to have invented a device that is covered under prior published patent applications. Under US law an individual who can prove first inventorship of a technology can file suit at any time to stop interference with the development and/or commercialization of the device. Also, the author does not understand the difference between a provisional and non provisional patent application. A provisional application establishes the date of first disclosure to the patent office. A non provisional application covering the same claims must be filed within a year of the provisional. When he refers to the 2006 application he apparently is ignorant of the fact that the first date of filing is the enforceable date of a patent application. Our first date of filing occurred in 2005 therefore the date of protection extends to 2005 not 2006. Further to this Retti is well within his rights to protest public domain disclosures of devices that he has already filed prior applications on. In closing, I would also like to state that having worked for Retti since 2007 I have observed on many occasions that Retti has acted in a prudent and acceptable manner regarding his activities in his elected industry. Retti has provided jobs and training for teenagers and young adults who were virtually unemployable. Retti has taken funds from his own pocket to help these young people stay in school and attend higher education. I know for a fact that Retti was paying the tuition and living expenses for at least a half dozen college students who had no means of attending college without his help. This article does a great disservice to Retti and Solaroad because of the obvious distortion of the facts given to the author of this article in a telephone conversation which he initiated with Retti. Perhaps people who do not know the extensive laws concerning patents should not comment on them.

I think Kahrl has more problems than dead patent applications:

http://parkville.patch.com/articles/second-parkville-man-charged-in-connection-with-hazmat-incident

Basically they’re bullying this girl because SHE fixed the problem and they want the proceeds. That’s what it boils down to. So they come in, claim she stole their idea, then like the bad tech version of Walmart, run off with all the money and everything else, while the young inventor is left feeling like shit because she gets nothing. If they really had something defensible, they’d have already gotten funding. No one will back it because it doesn’t WORK. But hers does. It’s loud and clear! If your initial idea was GOOD, you’d have a full patent by now for the exact same thing she did. It’s a junk claim pure and simple. You really think a girl in high school pored over and through useless rejected patents (not even a full patent) to come up with her high school science fair project? Wow. Corporate idiocy at its finest! There is NO reason for this company to squash brilliance like that. Back off. The idea ISN’T yours.

Addressing the matter at hand.
Hello, this is Nick Cameron from Solaroad Technologies. This article was written in a terribly wrong light. Solaroad Technologies encourages innovation in the science world. The fact that the author of this article is intentionally trying to give us a black eye by saying we were bullying this girl is absurd. The employees of Solaroad and Retti et al have witnessed firsthand the blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into trying to bring our products to commercialization. We have literally spent hundreds of thousands of dollars filing our intellectual properties, and we are simply trying to protect ourselves, as well as our investors from people viewing the patent work, and picking off pieces of it. Perhaps this young lady did come up with this herself and congratulations to her if that is the case, that is very high level science for a young person. The issue is the fact that as a company and as individuals we have continually made sacrifices to maintain our intellectual property. Retti has dedicated his life to this work, and the fact that he is trying to protect his life’s work is commendable in my book. Don’t think for a second that if General Electric had patented this and the same article came out about this young lady that there would not be legal action taken. We have everything on the line here, and we have to protect what is ours. To those people who don’t like it, to hell with you. We will continue to take a stand against people that we believe are infringing on our intellectual property. Whether they are young or old, companies, or individuals, the patent office should be checked before announcements are made about “new groundbreaking technologies” when they are in existence and have been.

The author of this article seems intent on trying to make us look like terrible people. If the author knew about patents he would know that patent applications still warrant protection in the courts. Patent interference occurs when an individual claims to have invented a device that is covered under prior published patent applications. Under US law an individual who can prove first inventorship of a technology can file suit at any time to stop interference with the development and/or commercialization of the device. Also, the author does not understand the difference between a provisional and non provisional patent application. A provisional application establishes the date of first disclosure to the patent office. A non provisional application covering the same claims must be filed within a year of the provisional. When he refers to the 2006 application he apparently is ignorant of the fact that the first date of filing is the enforceable date of a patent application. Our first date of filing occurred in 2005 therefore the date of protection extends to 2005 not 2006. Further to this Retti is well within his rights to protest public domain disclosures of devices that he has already filed prior applications on. In closing, I would also like to state that having worked for Retti since 2007 I have observed on many occasions that Retti has acted in a prudent and acceptable manner regarding his activities in his elected industry. Retti has provided jobs and training for teenagers and young adults who were virtually unemployable. Retti has taken funds from his own pocket to help these young people stay in school and attend higher education. I know for a fact that Retti was paying the tuition and living expenses for at least a half dozen college students who had no means of attending college without his help. This article does a great disservice to Retti and Solaroad because of the obvious distortion of the facts given to the author of this article in a telephone conversation which he initiated with Retti. Perhaps people who do not know the extensive laws concerning patents should not comment on them.