Dear Junobeach,

You are correct, I do like to waste time repeating the same point over and over again especially when Peter and I have mentioned in the past, that we do not talk about our patent strategy in public.

What is even more frustrating about this line of questioning, is that you and the person who asked you on SH to post the question on Agoracom (Dufjam) have been asking the same line of questions since August 2017 (JunoBeach) and Sept 26 2017 (Dufjam).

I really don't know what you expect I will say differently now...   The fact is that the following answer Peter gave on September 26, 2017, is still valid:

"Hi Duff,

Good to hear from you again and you are, once again, asking a very good question; this time with respect to patents.

First rest assured that what you see is nothing to be concerned about.  One see’s this all the time when applying for a patent.  Talking from experience we, at PyroGenesis, have seen this with most of our patent applications, and I cannot think of a single patent application that we were denied.

To answer your question, one needs to understand the players and the process.  It basically works something like this: when we apply for a patent it behooves us to try and describe in as much detail what the patent can uniquely do and, at the same time, get the best coverage surrounding the patent claims.  That is our role.  The examiners role, on the other hand, is to challenge our patent and/or limit our claims.  That is their role. Of note is that the examiner cannot be expected to be an expert in every field so often time the challenges are more of a “please explain why…” type of a challenge.  What you refer to in the link is a typical challenge which to the untrained eye may seem daunting.  Trust me it’s not. and it is all in hand.

It would not be wise for us to publicly disclose our patent application strategy (and there is always a strategy), so regretfully I will not go into the details of why and how we will proceed, but I can tell you that we have read the challenges and we are not concerned.  The challenges did not open our eyes to anything that would have us change our mind.  Remember, if we don’t think we will succeed we can’t afford to proceed.

Hope this helps Duff, and once again good to hear from you on Agoracom.  

Peter Pascali

CEO

PyroGenesis Canada Inc"

https://agoracom.com/ir/PyroGenesisCanada/forums/discussion/topics/697430-purevap-patent-application/messages/2170779#message

It clear that the entire storyline about the patent application is one of those urban legends that will keep reappearing until we get the patent protection.  In the meantime, our invention is protected under as "Patent Pending".

Contrary to what some posters have claimed on this board and are probably still claiming in private chatrooms, there is more than one strategy to get patent protection for new ideas.

You can decide to file a very narrow scope patent application with the aims of passing the key hurdle of patent applications from the start;

or

You can file a very wide scope patent application with the aim of obtaining the widest possible scope to the patent protection for an invention and a new process.  Naturally, if you chose to file a wide scope patent application, this will naturally result in the back and forth communication between the patent examiners and the patent attorney Peter describe above.

I understand the patent strategy being deployed, and I am very comfortable with it.  Investors should realize that PyroGenesis would not have chosen to invest the funds they did if they did not feel very comfortable about the patent application chance of success.

The idea of changing the royalty agreement is a non-starter because we know that we will have more than one patent protection for our technology, regardless of what the bashers have claimed in the past, or may claim in the future...

Regards,

Bernard Tourillon
President and CEO