"Skateman mentioned a few weeks/months ago that GG had applied for a US patent. And been refused."
Please note that the granting or not of an application for patent has nothing whatsoever to do with the efficacy of the procedure described in the application.
The reason that I mentioned the patent situation is to contrast GG's willingness to tout to some people who have commented on this forum that they have a patent, with GG's being silent on the results of their procedures over more than the last 5 years.
Here is what I wrote back in November of 2014:
I, too, think that the Gat Goren theory makes sense.
However, I think ClapTheHammer is correct.
The fact that US medical practitioners who could make a fortune from Gat Goren type treatments have not jumped onto their procedure is disheartening.
For your information, from what I can tell (i) Gat and Goren have been awarded this year Israel Patent No. 203271, and (ii) all their other Israel, Europe and United States patent applications pertaining to their method have been withdrawn or abandoned by now (i.e., as of November 16, 2014). (Perhaps I'm mistaken. However, I have not found any application-other than the application that led to the issuance of Israel Patent No. 203271-that has not been withdrawn or abandoned.)
I have not found an English version of the lone Israel patent, so I do not know whether any meaningful rights were granted. Of course, an Israel patent is enforceable only in the Holy Land.
The reason that all the other applications were abandoned may be because Gat and Goren's theory was not new. (An old client of mine whose patent application had been refused in view of prior work by an MIT researcher on a government grant proudly said, "I told you my theory was correct.") See this from the US Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of Gat and Goren's US Application Serial No. 11/826,283:
US Patent and Trademark Office said...
Claims 1-2,4,7-9 and 59-61 are rejected under pre-ALA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Nania et al., Percutaneous Sclerotherapy for Varicocele: A Report of 300 Cases.
Clinical Research, Vol. 9. N.4, 2003.
Regarding claim 1, Nania discloses a method for forestalling or therapy, at least partially,
of BPH or prostate cancer comprising: (a) selecting at least one patient for prostate hypertrophy
diagnosis (inherent step in any diagnosis procedure); (b) identifying a reflux of venous blood (i.e.
a varicocele) to the prostate in the at least one patient as a result of at least a partial positive test
for prostate hypertrophy (i.e. a varicocele, Pg. 502, col. 1, ln 6-10); and (c) impeding the reflux to
the prostate by occluding one or more veins (Pg. 503, col. 1, ln 1-5) affecting or conveying the
reflux, thereby reducing BPH or cancer accelerating or causing prostate hormone levels.
Regarding claim 2, Nania discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein affecting or
conveying comprises having incompetent valves resulting in hydrostatic pressure that prevents
upstream venous drainage. Nania discloses a method for treatment of varicocele, which is caused
by the vein having a defective valve that results in hydrostatic pressure that prevents upstream
Regarding claim 4, Nania discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein occlusion
comprises utilizing a sclerosant (Pg. 503, col. 1, ln 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, Nania discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein treating
comprises a combination of methods (catheterization and occlusion).
Regarding claim 8, Nania discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein a vein
comprises at least one of an internal spermatic vein or a deferential vein or a by-pass vein (Pg.
503, col. 1, ln 1-9).
Regarding claim 9, Nania discloses a method according to claim 1, wherein the venous
blood is rich in testosterone relative to a normal concentration range in the blood circulation (It is well known in the art that when males suffer from BPH high levels of testosterone are observed
(i.e. dihydrotestosterone, DRT)).
The office action goes on (pardon the expression) in a similar vein.
As ClapTheHammer has noted, it would be very helpful to see statistics relating to the results of Gat and Goren's numerous procedures. I think we do not even need a double-blind study since objective data from blood tests and prostate measurements would be available.
Perhaps the Gat Goren method works 10% of the time, or 40%, or 80%. I, for one, would like to know.
Post Edited (Skateman) : 8/15/2015 11:07:36 AM (GMT-6)