Patent rights for infrared held by HomeSafe inspection

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

http://www.homesafeinspection.com/in...=139&Itemid=33

Trainees will also learn how to use IR in combination with HomeSafe's specialized acoustic (listening) sensors to, in effect, "see" and "hear" through walls, floors and ceilings. This infrared/acoustic process uncovers "invisible" problems, particularly with wood-destroying insects, that often cannot be detected by conventional inspection techniques.

Additionally, HomeSafe has received major patents covering and protecting many of its key IR home inspection and IR/acoustic termite detection protocols. This means that anyone using these patented techniques in a home inspection or termite inspection must go through HomeSafe's training, certification and licensing program to remain in good legal standing.

Apparently the patents must deal with being able to "see" and "hear" through walls. So any of you Inspectors out there that claim you can "see" and "hear" through walls will need to pay their fee.

Nuff said??

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by jvogan

Oh yeah, I also invented the internet.

Well you may have invented the internet, but I put together my own "series of tubes". It isn't a big trunk..... it's a series of tubes... And I can prove it.....

[Carl Pennick]

Originally Posted by rhynum

I'm Rick Hynum, communications director for HomeSafe Home Services. Just to clear the air, HomeSafe does not claim to own any patents on IR cameras. Our patents, which are owned in part by the University of Mississippi, cover certain methods that have been proven to be necessary and highly effective in the usage of IR cameras in the residential building inspection and termite detection processes. We also own patents on acoustic (listening) devices and related software which, used in combination with IR scanning, can quickly and non-destructively pinpoint the exact location of a termite infestation.

Peng Lee developed HomeSafe's patented IR inspection and IR/acoustic inspection procedures as part of a U.S. Department of Agriculture-funded project at the University of Mississippi's National Center for Physical Acoustics in the 1990s. As the project's principal investigator, Mr. Lee established a set of protocols for IR usage in home (residential building) inspections and termite detection. Patent applications to protect these procedures were then filed. Mr. Lee and Kevin Seddon began working together in 2000 as subcontractors on an acoustics-related project for the U.S. Department of Defense and later transferred Lee's intellectual property to a jointly owned company, HomeSafe Inspection, Inc. They have been continuously promoting IR and IR/acoustic inspection procedures by franchising and licensing with HomeSafe-branded partner companies, independent home inspectors and pest control operators across the U.S. as well as in the Philippines and South Africa. After a lengthy and exhaustive review process that lasted many years and cost HomeSafe hundreds of thousands of dollars, the USPTO has approved many of our patent applications. Several additional applications are still under review.

Once the patents were issued, Mr. Lee and Mr. Seddon decided to license the use of these procedures to any home inspector. We firmly believe that most IR home inspectors want to use IR to its fullest capacity and to provide the highest-quality home inspection possible. HomeSafe has developed a license program that is affordable for any home inspector and also offers, but does not require, additional IR and IR/acoustic home inspection training and certification.

It is HomeSafe's intent to work with industry associations, training organizations and other interested parties to help establish industry-wide standards for IR usage in home inspections and to ensure that all home inspectors utilizing IR are properly trained in the most effective methods. However, we recognize that Flir, Fluke, Raytheon and other manufacturers produce high-quality IR cameras, and we would never dispute anyone's right to sell these devices nor to provide IR inspection training. In fact, HomeSafe is already working with or in communication with many of these manufacturers.

Having said that, HomeSafe is required to protect its investment in the patents and will therefore seek to stop all unlicensed usage of our patented processes.

If anyone feels that we have made an error in contacting them about IR usage in home inspections, please don't hesitate to contact us and let us know.

Rick Hynum
HomeSafe Home Services

What a jerk

[James H. Bushart]

You have patented a protocol...period. Undoubtedly, you would appreciate it if people adopted it and paid you for it and that is about as likely to happen as me lobbying for a HI licensing bill.

Take a hike.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

[ATTACH][/ATTACH]

Attached is the letter I got form Home Safe. I still do not understand how they can demand money from me when I or my company never used an IR camera. I think their greed will get the best of them. If any member of NACHI belongs to Home Safe, they ought to be ashamed of belonging to such of an organization. They may want to examine where their ethics are. If Home Safe is an affiliate member of NACHI, they need to be expelled for violating our COE.

[Nick Gromicko]

If you don't ever read their specific, patented processes, it can't ever be shown that you stole them.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbraun

[ATTACH]Attachment 25324[/ATTACH]

Attached is the letter I got form Home Safe. I still do not understand how they can demand money from me when I or my company never used an IR camera. I think their greed will get the best of them. If any member of NACHI belongs to Home Safe, they ought to be ashamed of belonging to such of an organization. They may want to examine where their ethics are. If Home Safe is an affiliate member of NACHI, they need to be expelled for violating our COE.

Email a formal complaint to Joe F. One less vendor will never hurt...

[dharris]

Originally Posted by jbushart

You have patented a protocol...period. Undoubtedly, you would appreciate it if people adopted it and paid you for it and that is about as likely to happen as me lobbying for a HI licensing bill.

Take a hike.

Busshy.. careful what you state, didn't you state just a couple years ago that you would never join ASHI..

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Nick are they a vendor?

[Brian E. Kelly]

Dear Rick, currently I am in the process of Patenting a procedure to pound sand. At this time it has been decided that you may use this procedure without paying the customary licensing fee.

[Emmanuel J. Scanlan]

Originally Posted by bkelly2

Dear Rick, currently I am in the process of Patenting a procedure to pound sand. At this time it has been decided that you may use this procedure without paying the customary licensing fee.

Now that's funny!!!

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Nick are they a vendor?

It appears that they are not members of NACHI according to their website.

Professional Memberships/Affiliations Peng Lee, Vice President/Chief Technology Officer
Memberships
International Electricians and Electronics Engineers Association
Acoustical Society of America
Entomological Society of America
National Association of Mold Professionals
Mississippi Pest Control Association
National Pest Management Association
National Society for Non-Destructive Testing
Licenses/Certifications
Mississippi Home Inspector Regulatory Board #0196
Mississippi Department of Agriculture & Commerce Bureau of Plant Industry #2518
Gene Bramlett, Director of Inspector Training
Memberships
National Association of Home Inspectors (Associate)
Housing Inspection Foundation (HIF)
Environmental Solutions Association (ESA)
Licenses/Certifications
Mississippi Home Inspector Regulatory Board #0206
Certified Mold Inspector (ESA)
Certified Mold Assessor (ESA)
Registered Home Inspector (HIF)
Robbie Enfinger, Inspector
Licenses/Certifications
Mississippi Home Inspector Regulatory Board #0228-NH (New Home Certified)
Mississippi Board of Contractors #R06885
International Code Council for Residential Buildings
HomeSafe Advanced Training Certification #118

Just another reason not to belong to any of the above associations. If they allow a company like Home Safe to belong to their organization then they will allow any unethical person to join.

[rmaday]

From the US patent office website (emphasis mine)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#whatpat

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.

Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.

Back to the Top

[rmaday]

From Home Safe web site
http://www.homesafeinspection.com/in...287&Itemid=107

Originally Posted by home safe

Non-Destructive Residential Inspection Method and Apparatus (Patent No. 7,445,377 - 7 Claims Approved): This patent covers HomeSafe’s method for creating a “thermal window” – that is, preparing a house for an IR inspection by creating a temperature differential between the inside and the outside of the house, followed by obtaining temperature profiles of the house’s interior and exterior components. These temperature profiles are then analyzed to uncover thermal anomalies indicating problems related to (including but not limited to) structure, moisture or electrical issues.

From US patent office
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...7&RS=7,445,377

Originally Posted by US patent office

United States Patent 7,445,377Lee , et al. November 4, 2008

Inventors: Lee; Peng (Oxford, MS), Seddon; Kevin J (Oxford, MS) Appl. No.: 10/708,571 Filed: March 11, 2004

[Doug Edwards, CMI]

Originally Posted by rmaday

From the US patent office website (emphasis mine)
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#whatpat

[/center]

In other words, someone can not patent a common process or procedure already in use. It would be akin to me applying for a patent on how to change a car tire. I suspect that most if not all IR techs use similar procedures due to simple nature of the task. How many ways can you point or hold the IR camera and document the findings. I thought the whole concept of having a patent on this was nebulous from the beginning.