**Preamble**
How much money illegally did Hughes Incorporated obtain using its plagiarism patent for the UBS bit design, according to US patent 7195086?
**To determine the content of US patent 7195086 inventors turned to an American businessman-millionaire.** The businessman examined the materials of practical tests of UBS-bits in comparison with the known serial bits and gave a conclusion-answer.
If it is true that UBS-bits have rock drilling rates twice that of known bits, then the patent value is equal to one hundred million US dollars.
The inventors were at a loss in such an answer and pointed to the businessman for his lack of competence and mere understanding of mathematics, since this is too much of the value of US patent 7195086.
The businessman smiled and replied that he was well versed in mathematics and gave evidence why the patent value is $ 100 million.
He explained, here imagine yourself, that you are drilling an oil or gas well at a depth of one and a half miles. Try to replace the worn chisel with a new one at a depth of one and a half miles into the well to continue drilling the well.
Count how much you have to unscrew and turn back the drill rods, the length of which is about 25 meters, to change the spent bit to a new one at a depth of one and a half miles to continue drilling.
As the tests have shown, the UBS-bit is twice as high as the drilling efficiency of the drill bit in comparison with the serial bits. Consequently, the work and costs associated with the replacement of bits at great depths are halved.
Therefore, the validity of US patent 7195986 is $ 100 million.
Conclusion: Firm Hughes, by organizing the receipt of a plagiarized patent, shamelessly robbed inventors of $ 100 million.
As she did, see below.
Roller bit with a right cone was invented by Hughes in 1909. It was a revolution technical solution to improve the boring of oil, gas, blast and other holes. It is not a secret that some roller bit companies have special divisions involved in theft of patent ideas as such. To prove that ideas in plagiary patents were not stolen, careless inventors hide borrowing of ideas from the famous patents under the image of doubtful probabilistic simulations and other «cut and try» methods, sheltering themselves behind demagogic statements like «that’s evident for specialists» to obtain their own plagiary patent.
US patent ¹7195086, giving a brief description of basics OBS technology, which predetermines the new, cardinal turn in roller bit construction, i.e., transfer from different methods of simulating, «cut and try» methods to precise mathematical calculation of damaging capacity for each (!) tooth of roller, to get OBS effect while boring of rock of any hardness (see part 4 of Rolling cutter theory). For the first time in the world practice of roller bit design any tooth of the roller which is not able to destruct the rock while boring with OBS effect will be excluded from operating surface of the roller bit by mathematical, calculation method. OBS technology is based on **“Theory of dynamic interaction of rolling cutter with a bottom hole while boring”** (Rolling cutter theory - RCT) created by inventors which shows the complicated interaction of rolling cutter with a rock while boring of holes with the help of mathematical formulae, same as Theory of electricity of Ohm’s law which is known for everyone:
**I = U / R**, where **I** – the current in electrical circuit; **U **– voltage and **R** – circuit resistance. For example: voltage of **U=220 V**, circuit resistance **R=110 ohm**, current **I = 220 / 110 = 2 A**. As we see, there is no simulating while calculation of current – only calculation based on formulae of Theory of electricity. Rolling cutter theory was inspected with a view to adequacy of existing complicated processes of interaction of the roller bit with a bottom hole while boring by way of creating the pilot model of the roller bit with controlled wearing of teeth on its surface. Controlled wearing of bits on the crown means that you need to calculate the positioning of teeth on the crown in such a way to preserve any pairs of teeth from wearing, for example, teeth 17 and 18 on the crown, and neighboring teeth located from both sides of the crown, i.e. teeth 15,16, and 19, 20 should be totally damaged after roller wear. While boring the wearing of teeth up to boring depth in the case of their pressing in the cutter shell of this crown occurred in those places which were forecasted by mathematical calculation of roller bit equipment distribution, as distinct from neighboring teeth on the same roller bit crown, where teeth were almost unbroken, having poor wear (see part 6 of RCT). The theory allowed getting the positive feedback. I.e, to get the knowledge on how to correct roller bit design parameters based on wearing of bit while boring, to improve boring indices with OBS effect depending on the rock hardness, providing both their stable exceeding over serial roller bits up to their modernization for operation with blocked shading, and while comparison of boring indices of OBS roller bits construction types in future. While mathematical calculation of damaging capacity of the hole by each tooth of the cutter in providing of OBS effect in the boring process all possible statistical, simulating, and other “cut and try” methods dominating more than 100 years from the date of roller bit invention by famous inventor **Hughes** because of no RCT are excluded. First testing of OBS roller bits in Russia and Ukraine manufactured based on US patent ¹7195086, showed essential boring efficiency improve, especially for hard rock compared to serial roller bits before their modernization for operation using OBS effect (see: www.bit.krivbassinfo.com ). So our patent is a sweet spot for false inventors operating in world roller bits companies, who want «to enter the Eden using the stolen horse». To protect US patent ¹7195086 from unfair roller bits specialists, merely thieves of different types, the trap was specially included in claims to “hook” such false inventors. The claim 14 and for example one of variants for its implementation (see Fig. 10) describes possible directions of thievery of our patent ideas in future. To steal ideas of US patent ¹7195086 one can do only in one way – to substitute mathematical calculated ordered varied pitch (OVP) for boring of this hardness of the rock (see Rolling cutter theory above), providing maximum allowed OBS effect for each tooth, to its more or less rough approximation with reducing of OBS effect regarding maximum allowed, calculated OBS effect while OVP. Approximation of our patent – is a partition of OVP for the whole length of crown circle to groups of equal pitches with different length of even pitch between the groups, including groups with one even pitch and their different positioning on rolling cutter crowns considering fractional part of crown coefficient Êv as per our patent. In other words, the pitches are even inside of groups and varied between groups, expressed by change in percents (%) of value of intergroup varied pitches, i.e. same as protected by the claim 1, 14. Of course, all this intergroup varied-even approximation of OVP, expressed by false inventors in the form of percents (%) and changes in the length of intergroup varied pitches, is totally under the claim 1 of our patent, where the following is stated: «absolute difference between over running pairs of teeth is more than 10% of absolute difference of max. and min. pitch of the crown of rolling cutter» and which is mathematically precisely calculated by «fractional part of crown coefficient Êv» without different simulations. False inventors of «new things» shut their eyes to it and lie, trying to convince patent experts that it was created while simulating, modeling and other “cut and try”, but not with a simple (100%) copying of our patent in the part of precise mathematical calculation for positioning of subgroup over running calculated pairs of varied pitches based on fractional part of crown coefficient Êv from the claim 1 of our patent. As was shown in Rolling cutter theory, any statistical processing of information, modeling and simulating does not add any knowledge to internal technical contradictions, which could be determined only while creating of scientific Theory, adequately describing actual complicated causative relationships of process researched, event or engineering devices by mathematical formulae. For example, only theory of electricity expressed by mathematical language in the form of Ohm’s law (current is equal to voltage divided by circuit resistance) provided scientific basis for calculation of different electric devices constructions, expanding by mathematical formulae in future, for example for high frequency currents. As of today no one will calculate electrical devices by method of simulating, statistical modeling, and other “cut and try” methods. It is not required to do simulating while projecting of electrical installations, because there are theoretical formulae of precise calculation, based on which high efficiency electrical devices are created. Due to abovementioned Rolling cutter theory it is now possible to make a clean sweep of different “cut and try” methods, simulating and other probability models, namely dynamic calculated interaction of each teeth of roller bit with a rock while boring with OBS effect. Let’s examine in more detail the first plagiary of our patent by example 6.3.2. **Example 6.3.2**
After appearance of our US patent No7195086 (2007) the company **Baker Hughes Incorporated**, to the shame, was “hooked” by the claim 14 of subgroup varied pitch, as a protection of our patent from false inventors – assignees of Hughes, the famous inventor of roller bits. False inventors from this company, using the simulating and sheltering by juicy names, such as “system, method” etc. created the patent illegally (see US patent ¹8002053 (2011). Reading these “pearls” of plagiary pirate patent, it is clear that there is neither system no method exist, but only abstract oratory that «it is clear for specialists in this sphere». Being the specialists in this sphere we didn’t identify and «clear» and new things, except 100% plagiary, merely the thievery of basic ideas from our patent from the claim 1. At that, representatives of **Hughes** company created the plagiary in corrupted, ILLITERATE form regarding absolutely new ideas of patent, expressed on the basis of abovementioned Rolling cutter theory, because in due time, in reply to our proposals made to roller bit design engineers of US company **HUGHES CHRISTENSEN** to study our know-how as per US patent ¹7195086, the specialist of the company told us: **«I’m working with roller bit for 30 years, what can you give me?»** We answered the following to this absurd and haughty phrase: **«Not 30, but 100 years roller bit world is not aware of Rolling cutter theory and flounce in simulating and other “cut and try methods”**. Refusing to get out knowledge on abovementioned Rolling cutter theory with mathematical calculation of OBS roller bits specialists of **Baker Hughes Incorporated** company could only do one of the worse variants of approximation in the form of plagiary of our patent (see below), and become in such a way just a chicken thieves having huge illegal bonuses from using the new ideas from US patent No7195086 for the company and false inventors. Perhaps, famous **Hughes** up there was flushed with a shame after actions of his assignees for such plagiary pirate behavior. Let’s examine in more detail the sense of «patent ideas thievery» expressed in Russian, which mildly sounds in English as «direct infringement of patent USA ¹7195086», by example of plagiary US patent ¹8002053В2 (2011) and the same patent **EP 2188 485 B1 «ROLLERCONE BIT PROVIDED WITH ANTI-TRACKING CUTTING ELEMENT SPACING»**, (2011) of **Baker Hughes Incorporated Company** [27], which appeared after out US patent ¹7195086, **«ANTI-TRACKING EARTH BORING BIT WITH SELECTED VARIED PITCH FOR OVERBREAK OPTIMIZATION AND VIBRATION REDUCTION»**, (2007). 1. Even the words in abovementioned plagiary patent of Hughes company assignees shock us: «...ANTI-TRACKING CUTTING...» with further explanations (see ABSTRACT) on reducing (?) of formations on the bottom hole of the track (track), i.e. rack formation. **Fig. 6.3.7 – To the left there is a photo of complete (100%) exclusion of rack** formation by OBS roller bits, manufactured based on US patent ¹7195086 and formation of rack for serial roller bits before their modernization for operation with OBS effect while boring.
But dear false inventors! Anti-tracking was already solved based on our patent with 100% (!) warranty of its exclusion, and it is not required to solve already solved problem by way of different formations reduction on the bottom hole while boring based on simulating. All possible reductions of rack formation after our patent are the day before regarding rack formation technical solutions (see Fig. 6.3.7). We wonder where was an expert when he was approving this technical solution, which is less effective than already existing? The tests performed and shown on the Fig. 6.3.7 (rack formation after roller bits with even pitch and COMPLETE EXCLUSION OF RACK FORMATION (ANTI-TRACKING) by OBS roller bits, manufactured based on US patent No7195086) obviously prove that «ANTI-TRACKING» problem was completely and implicitly solved by our patent (more information at www.bit.krivbassinfo.com). Trying to reduce (?) rack formation in different ways is same as developing electrical engine design without considering, for example, Ohm’s law with precise mathematical calculations of electrical devices by method of simulating at present time. Funny, isn’t it? 2. The results of different methods of simulating, processing of different statistical, probabilistic data while using of roller bits in terms of solving the issues on reducing or exclusion of **harmful vertical resonance vibration (HVRV)** and rack formation of the roller bit up to the safe level, will be shown by example of used bit developed by Hughes company [1] and one of Chinese companies (see Fig. 6.3.8). **Fig. 6.3.8 – Photo of used bit from Hughes Cristofen company (to the left) [1] and one of Chinese companies (to the right), developed as a result of simulating and other “cut and try” methods, show that reducing of harmful vertical resonance vibration and rack formation by simulating and “cut and try” methods only in the case of increasing of teeth number. At that the blocked rock shading is completely excluded in the process of roller bit operating on the bottom hole, and boring efficiency consequently**.
Refusing from our proposals to study Rolling cutter theory and KNOW-HOW of our patent, **Hughes** design engineers were able to reduce rack formation and harmful vertical resonance vibration only by increasing the number of tooth on bit crowns by simulating methods (they literally besieged all over the roller bit with tooth). Increasing the number of expensive hard alloyed tooth due to their excess concentration on the crowns (see Fig. 6.3.8), any blocked shading of the rock in the process of roller bit operation is out of the question. “Cut and try” and simulating methods are not able to solve internal technical contradictions of roller bits operation, as against developed by us Rolling cutter theory from the part of resonance vibration of the roller bit (see above the part 6 of Rolling cutter theory). Triumphal solution of US patent ¹7195086 lies in the fact, that after arranging the varied pitches exactly as it is shown in all patent claims, without their dismembering, we SOLVE: 1. Complete (100%) exclusion of rack formation (ANTY-TRACKING). 2. Exclusion of harmful vertical resonance vibration, initiated by roller bit. 3. Providing of operated blocked shading (OBS effect) in the case of bottom hole destruction by each of roller bit tooth while boring of rock of any hardness. 4. Providing simultaneous increasing of drift (m), boring speed and hour durability of OBS roller bits operation compared to serial roller bits with an even pitch while reducing of the number of teeth, including the hard-alloyed teeth. 3. Let’s examine the sense of our patent plagiary by **Hughes Company** in corrupt, illiterate form. Corrupt form of plagiary from the side of false inventors (Ricks) in US patent ¹8002053 from **Baker Hughes Incorporated** lies in the fact that trying to infuse supposed scientific value o method of simulating etc., they decided to change slightly the principal sense of our US patent ¹7195086, shown in the Fig.2, (see Fig. to the right 6.3.9) without understanding of what they are doing. This is a behavior of small children. Besides the fact that the idea of crown coefficient Êv, providing non-simulating, non-probabilistic, but precise calculation of damaging capacity of teeth or teeth pairs on the crown from turn to turn while crossing of the roller bit crown by instantaneous axis of roller bit rotation was taken from the claim 1 of our patent, they also shown the difference of Radius (R) effective length of crown broaching on the bottom hole to the radius (r) of the crown, i.e., illiterately changed crown coefficient Êv calculated value. The length of crown radius in our patent runs over the length of cutter shell (see Fig. 6.3.9, to the right), and in **Hughes** patent the length is taken over the top of teeth, which was shown by plagiarists with the purpose of supposed scientific simulating (see Fig. 6.3.9, to the left). Sowing sizes to determine the crown coefficient Êv over the teeth top, false inventors just don’t understand that it should be shown only in the cases when the roller bit is boring the AIR (!), but not a hard rock. Is it possible that teeth of rolling cutter interact with a rock under the pressure of 24 tons on the bit, when teeth are not in the rock but in the air? Was US patent ¹8002053 of **Hughes** made for the roller bit boring the AIR, but not hard rock? We could only be surprised by such technical solution which is far away of Rolling cutter theory. That’s why in our patent we show the crown radius over the cutter shell in the sense that teeth are in the rock for the whole depth of teeth outlet in the case of pressure on the bit from the side of boring column. The overrunning difference of teeth pairs in accordance with crown coefficient Kv shown in the claims of US patent 7195086 could be calculated only under such dynamic interaction of cutter with bored rock. The specious wish of patent ideas thieves to distinguish their plagiary patent from ours without real knowledge on Êv essence (see part 3 of Rolling citer theory) leads to such groundless, illiterate simulations, aimed at using of stolen ideas of our patent and trend to avoid a patent, from which these ideas were borrowed, and also sheltering with loud expressions as methods, simulating, and other terms which does not show the sense, not to allow the experts of patent authorities to identify the plagiary, and to obtain patent for ITS further practical use to get illegal economic benefit. At this stage of development of rolling cutter rock destruction tool, after our US patent ¹7195086, we should forget the word «simulation» for anti-cracking, because tracking (rack formation) does not exist in OBS roller cutters due to precise mathematical calculations, but not different simulating calculation which are far away from the truth. As explained in Rolling cutter theory, OBS technology is built on the reverse principle, i.e. not on rack formation control by design engineers, existing for 100 years from the date of roller bit invention, (see part 1 of Rolling cutter theory), but on the contrary, on the principle of using the rack formation itself to improve boring efficiency, by complete exclusion of rack formation by way of roller bit itself, (see part 3, 4 of Rolling cutter theory). **Fig.6.3.9. In figure (to the left) the photo of the roller bit from US patent ¹8002053 of Hughes Company is shown, where calculation data for crown coefficient Êv comes from the teeth top, which certifies lack of interaction of rolling cutter with bottom hole and is usable while boring of “air” with a rolling cutter, but not a hard rock. Actual, correct sizes of crown coefficient are shown in pour US patent ¹7195086 (to the right), based on contact of teeth and rock for the total depth of teeth projection above cutter shell under the influence of pressure on the cutter from the side of boring column and dynamic interaction of cutter with rock in the boring process.**
Making the approximating plagiary of our patent or just copying the claim 1, considering claim 14 on group positioning of teeth with varied intergroup between teeth pitches means that boring effect regarding serial bits with an even pitch could be essentially improved due to approximation. Abovementioned Rolling cutter theory shows this, and it is also shown in all claims which are impossible to split, that maximum OSB effect will be reached in the case of positioning of teeth on the crown only based on ordered mathematical progressions, i.e. in the case of teeth positioning based on ordered varied pitch. Approaching the group approximation of group varied pitches to ordered varied pitch the OBS effect could be reached, which will be the biggest in the case of so-called ordered approximation, i.e. approximation closed to ordered varied pitch, shown as an example in the Fig. 10 of US patent ¹7195086. All other group splits of varied pitches are the worse approximation variant, which will be in a greater degree reduce OBS effect, than in the case of ordered group approximation, shown in the Fig.10 but which in any case will provide better boring efficiency compared to bits with an even pitch, if not to breach the claims 1 and 5 of our patent (the claim 5 will be described below). As per plagiary US patent ¹8002053 **Hughes** engineers chose the worse variant of plagiary approximation from OBS effect point of view, but which allows increasing of boring efficiency from using of our ideas in some degree of OBS effect compared to serial **Hughes** bits with an even pitch before their modernization for operation with OBS effect. For example the real tests of OBS bits at Lebedinskiy Mining Beneficiation Plant (Russia), manufactured based on all claims of our patent, shown increasing of drift (m) by +83%, i.e., almost twice (!). in the case of modernization of ordered approximation serial bit, i.e., approximation closed to ordered varied pitch, shown as an example in the Fig. 10 of US patent ÑØÀ ¹7195086, increasing of drift at Lebedinskiy Mining Beneficiation Plant could be less, i.e. up to +50% (m). In the worse variant of plagiary approximation shown in **Hughes** plagiary patent, considering our claim 5 in the metal (see below), the one can reach essentially lower drift increasing value, than +83% and +50%, i.e. up to +30 %. But this minimum OBS effect, for example, up to +30% in the worse variant of plagiary approximation from the side of Hughes engineers, will be essentially bigger compared to drifting of serial **Hughes** bits with an even pitch up to their modernization for operation with OBS effect. This is the sense of patent ideas theft by unfair false inventors from **Baker Hughes Incorporated** and corresponding moral and financial losses for inventors of US patent ¹7195086. ### 4. Let’s examine the description of Hughes plagiary patent and our patent.In the Fig. 6.3.10 the plagiary positioning of Hughes patent teeth is shown (see Fig.8, 9) and our patent (Fig.10), which coincide in principle, and certify rough approximation of ideas protected by claim 1 of our patent. **Fig. 6.3.10. Schemes of group positioning of teeth varied pitches on bit crowns of our US patent No7195086 (2007) (to the right) and US patent ¹8002053 (2011) from Вaker Hughes (to the left) as rough approximation from precise OBS effect calculation for each teeth pair for ordered varied pitch.**
To prove the plagiary let’s examine in parallel the claims of two patents of group non-regular teeth pairs to provide OBS effect. 4.1. In each of patents calculation of overrunning pitches difference is done by fractional part of crown coefficient Êv. But Вaker **Hughes** hides the precise calculation as per our claim 1 for fractional part of crown coefficient Êv and ascribes it to probabilistic simulating. Although there is no simulating here, because **Hughes Company** applies our method of precise mathematical calculation for fractional part of crown coefficient Êv instead of it, based on which they calculate overrunning pairs of group uneven teeth pairs. 4.2. As the length of the even pitch group ÀÀÀÀÀÀ of **Hughes Company** (see Fig. 10 to the left) is approximately equal to the half of crown circle, and the length of even pitch group of our patent (112) (see Fig. 10 to the right), is also equal to the half of crown circle, at that the crown coefficient of plagiary patent is equal to 1,3÷1,5 which is an optimum crown coefficient for our patent (see claim 13), which is equal to 1,3÷1,7, i.e. there is a reason to tell about î 100% copying of group split of crown circle to approximate the expected ordered varied pitch in plagiary patent (see Fig. 6.3.10) coming closer to the sense of the claim 5 (see below) of our patent, which is not officially mentioned in claims of **Hughes Company**. 4.3. If variable between-teeth corner of group varied between-teeth pitches on the crown of **Hughes** engineers patent (as mentioned in claims of false inventors) differs in the range of 20% - 80%, this guarantees 100% copying of our claim 1, in the part that all sizes from 20% to 80% of **Hughes** engineers plagiary patent will be in the range of «10% and more of absolute difference between maximum and minimum pitch on this crown». Consequently, **Hughes** engineers claims are 100% copying of our patent ideas and there is nothing new invented by false inventors. In the mentioned above Rolling cutter theory we didn’t calculate group positioning of equipment even in the form of ordered approximation, (see Fig. 6.3.10) given as an example in the Fig. 10 of our patent, because this is an approximate approximation regarding the maximum OBS effect, which could be mathematically calculated for ordered varied pitch and which could provide the maximum OBS effect, approved while practical testing, for example at Lebedinskiy Mining & Beneficiation Plant (+83%). Why should we give the calculation of the worse in Rolling cutter theory, if we have better? But this principle is ignored by false inventors, who corrupted with the help of simulation the objectivity of expert evaluation, who approved issuing of worse patent solution, than already existing our better patent solution. It is clear that in the case of more close approximation, i.e. in the case of more frequent split of groups with an even pitch over the whole length of crown circle, ordered approximation will come close to the estimated, according to ordered varied pitches. But such maximum approximation to ordered varied pitch was not shown by Hughes engineers in plagiary patent. They will do this (!) in future while manufacturing of our plagiary OBS bits, being protected with illegally obtained US patent ¹8002053 (2011) and demagogic statement that «it is clear for specialists». We are sure they will do this in future, because in other case approximated Hughes bit will bore worse than the serial one, if they will not break using of our claims, for example – claim 5 (see below). ### What was not shown by Hughes engineers in their claims of plagiary patent or what could be concealed while manufacturing of roller bits as per Hughes plagiary patents?**In the claims of plagiary patent Hughes engineers for the first time in world roller bits patent practice concealed and did not show the idea protected by us on interaction between teeth of all cutter crowns along the generating line.** This concerns our claim 5, when teeth of all cutter crowns “should deviate from any generating line in the range of not more than one half of minimum pitch” along any generating line of the cutter.
This claim 5 was not understood by yesterday rolling cutter specialists, who are not aware of Rolling cutter theory. As per their logic, teeth on different crowns of the cutter are independent from each other in the boring process. This error is done by rolling cutters designers over 100 years. Cross coupling of teeth between crowns as per the claim 5 is the most important requirement, concerning the origin if resonant vibration, generating by the roller bit while boring, so-called by us harmful vertical resonant vibration of the bit. If the idea borrowed by **Hughes** engineers from our patent from the claim 1 and 14 on group positioning of varied pitches will not be in accordance with our claim 5, the harmful vertical resonant vibration will appear, which will essentially reduce or completely eliminate the OBS effect due to hard bit vibration while boring (see part 6 of RCT). We consider that Hughes engineers intentionally ignored the plagiary of our claim 5 in their claims, because implicitly, for example in the Fig. 9, approximating the length of even group pitch ÀÀÀÀÀ... to the length of group varied pitch, shown by example of Fig. 10 of our patent (see Fig. 6.3.10), will be a strong approximation to comply with requirements of the claim 5 from our patent, i.e., approximation to the fact that the majority of generating lines will satisfy requirements of claim 5 of our patent. Why **Hughes** false inventors should include claim 5 of our patent in claims of their plagiary patent, if they could just copy our claim 5 while projecting, being skulk behind simulation in the case of plagiary patent obtaining. In other words this was done intentionally by **Hughes** engineers to wimple the plagiary, but in practice of metal manufacturing of group varied pitches of cutters they will secretly use it to increase the efficiency of blocked shading for manufactured metal plagiary OBS bits as per plagiary US patent ¹8002053, being skulk behind explanations that “everything is clear for the specialists in this sphere”. Without using the claim 5, breaking the claims of our patent, resonant vibration will destroy even roughly approximated OBS effect of **Hughes** plagiary patent with abovementioned drifting increase up to +30%. Namely this fact is not understood by **Hughes** specialists because of lack of knowledge in RCT, or they just make believe they don’t understand it, and that’s why ignored claim 5 from our US patent ¹7195086 while compiling of their claims. ### 5. One more proof of awful theoretical illiteracy of Hughes inventors.For example, in the Fig. 6.3.11 there are traces of hole coverage by teeth of cutters crowns. It is necessary to admit that without knowledge on RCT in the Fig. 6.3.11 the false view of teeth damage effects on the bottom hole is shown, because only teeth of crowns crossing the cutter’s instantaneous axis of rotation, could have point contact with bottom hole (see RCT above). At such a fractional part difference in crowns coefficients Êv (from 1,62 to 1,125) for the cutter described and shown in **Hughes** patent, teeth of cutter periphery and teeth at the top of cones will slide against the bottom hole and there will be no point contact. So schemes of bottom hole damage shown in the Fig. 6.3.11 proof the elementary illiteracy and count on simpleton experts and their superficial knowledge on interaction of multicone cutter with a rock from the point of view of dynamic interaction of the cutter with bottom hole while boring, i.e. with point, but not sliding teeth contact with bottom hole rock in the boring process (see part 1 of RCT). **Fig. 6.3.11. The scheme of false representation of bottom hole damage, shown in plagiary US patent ¹8002053В2 and same plagiary patent EP 2 188 485 B1 «ROLLER CONE BIT PROVIDED WITH ANTI-TRACKING CUTTING ELEMENT SPACING», (2011), because in the case of different crown coefficients sliding of teeth along the bottom hole is not considering, and as a consequence there is no point like rock destruction while sliding (see example, Fig. 6.3.7 (to the right) and Fig. 1.3 in the part 1 of RCT).**
For different types of simulating, plagiary speculating, and also while boring the AIR, such figures shown in **Hughes** plagiary patent, given by us in the Fig. 6.3.11, could be taken at face value, i.e., as correct objective figures. For cutter specialists who are aware of RCT, this is ordinary theoretical illiteracy of Hughes plagiarists in the part of cutter dynamic interaction in the bottom hole while boring (see Fig. 1.3, where actual point like interaction of teeth with a rock is shown), i.e., while crossing of cutter’s instantaneous axis of rotation of this crown, initiating the rack formation, and also nor point like, sliding interaction of teeth with a rock for different crown coefficients. ### 6. Causes of plagiary patent issuing for Baker Hughes Incorporated.Let’s examine the causes issuing of plagiary US patent ¹8002053 **В2 for Baker Hughes Incorporated** [27], and same plagiary patent **EP 2 188 485 B1 «ROLLER CONE BIT PROVIDED WITH ANTI-TRACKING CUTTING ELEMENT SPACING»**, (2011) in **European Patent Organization**. Patent could be issued and published based on authorized permission of patent organization expert from patent country. One may assume that different experts in different ways understand patent ideas, shown in claims of any patent. In our case the expert from US patent authority (USPTO), who issued both US patent ¹7195086 (2007), and plagiary US patent No8002053В2 (2011) to **Baker Hughes Incorporated** was the same person – **Mr. William P. Neuder**. Why Mr. William P. Neuder approved issuing of our patent US ¹7195086 in (2007) and later the plagiary patent US ¹8002053В2 (2011) to **Baker Hughes Incorporated**?
We could assume two reasonable answers here. **Answer 1**. Assuming the famous Russian humor «decent was stupid» and nothing more!
May be expert of **USPTO** USA, Mr. **William P. Neuder** did not understand, did not see, struck blind, his mind blanked out, because he ignored evident and clear things mentioned in claim 1 of patent US ÑØÀ ¹7195086, that if «at least 20% and more pairs have estimated pairs of teeth according to fractional part of crown coefficient Êv, and overrunning difference of estimated pairs on the crown is more than 10% of the difference between minimum and maximum teeth pitches on this crown», this is 100% plagiary of our ideas. In the claims of plagiary US patent ¹8002053 of **Baker Hughes Incorporated**, changes of difference for varied intergroup pitches is in the range of 20% to 80% with various difference of changing the varied group pitches, divisible by 10%, which is implicitly under the item 1 of our patent. Consequently solution of expert from USPTO USA, Mr. **William P. Neuder** is mistaken: it is 100% plagiary and he should not issue plagiary patent to **Baker Hughes Incorporated**. What could be the causes of such rude violation regarding objectivity while examination of claims for assumed invention? This will cause, or already causes to the fact that other plagiary companies of our patent will only change percents (!) of relative difference for overrunning varied intergroup pitches, and will get an approximation of basic ideas of our patent following getting of illegal profit in future from violation of patent laws under the image of simulating and pompous name of methods. For example, any other company under the image of simulation will show changes in group varied pitches with a difference divisible not by 10% as **Hughes** has, but, for example, 7%, i.e. from 14% and so on 35%, 63%,84% and under the image of simulation will obtain so-called new plagiary patents of our patent, which were first authorized by poor judgment of **USPTO** USA expert, Mr.** William P. Neuder** for **Baker Hughes Incorporated**. **Answer 2**. This is money. And no other explanation is possible. **USPTO** USA expert **Mr. William P. Neuder** got the money for closing the eyes at plagiary patent and issued it in spite of existing of our patent.
And you, dear gentlemen, inventors of OBS technology, should struggle in court or patent instances for legitimate cause with **Baker Hughes Incorporated**. To the shame of mentioned company, which is controlling a substantial proportion of world oil extraction, it did not found any other way, except making of plagiary ideas from our patent US ¹7195086, without any moral shame for theft of other’s ideas. Abovementioned RCT created by us predetermines the future development of cutting rock destruction tools to increase boring effectiveness due to OBS effect between more perfect constructions of OBS bits. That’s logical, similar to theory of electricity, which was expanded and developed, for example, current calculation at its high frequency. And we would not like that out further claims for supposed inventions of more perfect OBS bits constructions were examined by Mr. **William P. Neuder** because we don’t believe that after issuing of the patent the regular plagiary patent will appear, authorized and approved by the same expert – Mr. **William P. Neuder**, as it happened to the patent US ¹7195086. We ask the management of **USPTO** to examine the causes of non-objective issuing of patent US ¹8002053 to **Baker Hughes Incorporated** by their expert – Mr. **William P. Neuder**. We ask the management of **Baker Hughes Incorporated** to examine the possibility of bringing to responsibility the false inventors, which disgrace the name of famous roller bits inventor – **Mr. Hughes **(1909) being his assignees – **Baker Hughes Incorporated** Company. I’m ashamed even to write about it, but false inventors from **Baker Hughes Incorporated** are not ashamed to do such disgraceful things. Patent US ¹7195086 – is a patent, at the heart of which the fundamental theoretic research and results of numerous practical tests in real production conditions lie in. Our patent principally differs from the rest, more «small» patents while solving the issues on destruction of rock by teeth while boring, the sense of which lies in insignificant, not theoretically proved changes in the order of teeth positioning, known different types of both uniform and varied pitches on the cutter, due to both probabilistic «cut and try» methods, and superficial understanding of bottom hole damage effect by cutter’s teeth, without considering actual dynamic interaction of teeth with a rock, based on RCT. Based on our patent, ordered varied pitch – is not a variety of known varied pitches, but objective necessity of its use based on all claims of our patent to provide maximum possible OBS effect, i.e., maximum possible volume of sludge drilled out fraction by each tooth of the cutter considering boring of definite rock, as shown in the Fig. 7 of our patent. The patent US ¹7195086 is the basis of new generation of rolling cutter boring tool while rock mechanical destruction on the basis of OBS destruction, and we are absolutely sure, that in due course all bit plants in the world will calculate roller bits construction using the OBS technology. There is no other way in the case of rock mechanical destruction by the cutting tool. This is our guarantee for the 200 years as minimum. May be, in future the new ways for boring of deep holes, based on other type of rock destruction (laser, ionic etc.) will be invented. In the case of mechanical rock destruction by cutting tool there is only one way for essential increasing of boring efficiency with roller bit – using of operated blocked shading (OBS effect) based on RCT and claims shown in the patent US ¹7195086. RCT described by inventors is a practical guide (KNOW-HOW) to start using of OBS technology for any bit plant at the earliest possible date. Basics of RCT prove that it is not a limit for all boring parameters and creating of OBS bits constructions in future. For example, it is theoretically proven that saving up to 30% of expensive hard alloyed equipment, with simultaneous drift increasing (m), boring speed, and hour durability of bits is possible, compared to existing old constructions of roller bits with an even pitch, especially for construction of bits, designed for boring of hard rock. These statements are difficult to be understood by yesterday cutter specialists, who are not aware of RCT, and the more so to believe in objective reality of our statements, based on RCT. Yesterday simulating cutter specialists of different categories will easily fall into line with our statements saving up to 30 % of hard alloyed teeth while simultaneous drift increasing, boring speed, and hour durability of future OBS bits, but only after careful studying of RCT. Illiterate in RCT cutter designers will argue the opposite, and this is logical. Claims of patent US ¹7195086 are forbidden to be broken. Only complete and implicit realization of all claims of our patent will provide OBS effect while boring, thus providing simultaneous drift increasing (m), boring speed, and hour durability of OBS bits, reducing the number of hard alloyed equipment compared to serial bits before their modernization for operation with OBS effect. For example, in the case of calculating the ordered varied pitch based on claim 1, and not in accordance with requirements of claim 5, the OBS effect of such OBS bit will be essentially reduced, up to boring values lower than for serial bits with an even pitch before their modernization for operation with OBS effect (for more information see RCT). So false inventors from **Hughes Company**, after copying of not the best variant of our patent approximation, in accordance with claim 1, i.e., after copying of one half of ideas from out patent and intentionally or by misunderstanding ignoring the copyright of claim 5, while manufacturing of roller bits based on their plagiary patent US ¹8002053, will be just obliged to produce bits in secret considering our claim 5 or coming closer to it as shown in the Fig. 9 in the likeness of obtained plagiary patent. We know about the cases of semi-copyright of OBS bits in the metal without considering the claim 5. Based on testimonies of test men of those false OBS bits, which considered to be OBS bits only nominally, and in fact the bit was manufactured in metal without considering of claim 5, which was «giddily jumping» while testing, breaking both itself and equipment, supporting its operation. It is the same as flutter in aircraft industry, when the craft falls to pieces in the air due to resonant vibration. The attempt of design engineers to make semi-copyright of claims from out patent leads to such testing results only in the name of OBS bits. We are sorry, that **Hughes** cutter specialists ignored our proposals on studying the OBS technology based on our patent and chose the way of ideas theft, refusing to study the basics of RCT. Abovementioned information proves that 100% plagiary patent US¹8002053 (2011) of **Baker Hughes Incorporated** should be cancelled, as a patent containing anything new compared to already existing patent US ¹7195086 (2007), predetermining mathematically precise, calculated OBS technology for projecting of new generation rolling cutter boring tool for boring of rock of any hardness. With respect to readers,
**USSR inventor – Viktor Lytvynenko** |