One of the arguments frequently made in support of AttoBahn is that the company has been filing patents for more than a decade and continues receiving new patent approvals today.
At first glance, this sounds impressive.
However, when comparing the earliest patent filings to the newest patent filings, a different picture emerges.
The Original Architecture Dates Back to 2013
The core patent family appears to originate from:
June 4, 2013 priority filing
Original patent family:
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2014197613A2/un
This original architecture introduced many of the concepts still promoted today, including:
- Viral Molecular Networks
- Atto Second Multiplexing (ASM)
- Viral Orbital Vehicles
- Protonic Switches
- Nucleus Switches
- V-Rover / Nano-Rover architectures
- RF transmission up to THz frequencies
- ultra-high speed switching concepts
The “New” Patents Still Trace Back to 2013
One of the newest granted patents:
US12471185B2
https://patents.google.com/patent/US12471185B2/en
Still traces back to:
Priority Date: June 4, 2013
A more recent application:
US20250351229A1
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20250351229A1/en
Also traces back to:
Priority Date: June 4, 2013
Why This Matters
Patents often create the impression that a company is continuously inventing new technology.
But patent families work differently.
A company can continue filing:
- continuations
- continuation-in-parts
- foreign national phase entries
- modified claim sets
- follow-on applications
for many years while still relying on the same original invention.
The question is not:
“How many patents exist?”
The better question is:
“How much of the underlying technology is actually new?”
The Attosecond Problem Never Went Away
One surprising finding is that even the newer patent filings continue repeating terminology from the original architecture.
For example:
The patents repeatedly describe:
- “Atto Second Multiplexing”
- “attosecond switching”
- “atto-second time frames”
Yet the implementations continue describing:
Orbital time slots of approximately:
0.25 microseconds
This equals:
250 nanoseconds
250,000 picoseconds
250,000,000 attoseconds
That means the operational time slots described are hundreds of millions of times larger than the claimed attosecond scale.
If the architecture truly operates in attoseconds, why do the described operational timing windows remain in microseconds?
That inconsistency appears in early patents and remains visible in later filings.
The Bigger Question
A decade of patent activity can mean:
- continuous innovation
or
- continued refinement of one original idea
The evidence here suggests much of the current patent activity still revolves around the same foundational 2013 Viral Molecular Network architecture rather than clearly distinct new inventions.
That does not automatically invalidate the technology.
But it does raise an important diligence question:
Are later patents evidence of technological breakthroughs — or evidence that the company is still trying to commercialize the same original concept more than a decade later?
Leave a Reply