Ohio University Computer Services Center: Fill & Download for Free

Although this is not a COMPANY, if you live in the US, you might try the Wisconsin Innovation Service Center (WISC), affiliated with the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater. " The Wisconsin Innovation Service Center is a specialty center of the Wisconsin Small Business Development Center. As part of the statewide Wisconsin SBDC Network, WISC helps clients make informed decisions by providing research on market opportunities, customers and competition. Inventors can see the feasibility of a new product idea, identify licensing partners, and solve manufacturing and distribution challenges. Business owners gain competitive advantage through primary research results, helping them to grow and improve their companies." ( http://wisconsinsbdc.org/wisc )You don't have to live in Wisconsin to avail yourself of their services - at least the last I knew (they made presentations to the Toldeo (Ohio) Intellectual Property Law Association some years ago, which is how I learned about them)You might also try, more generally, the University with Wisconsin Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Network (http://wisconsinsbdc.org/ )But note that the Wisconsin SBDC is a local branch of the US Government's Small Business Administration's Office of Small Business Development Centers. "The Mission of the Office of Small Business Development Centers is to promote entrepreneurship, small business growth and the US economy by providing the critical funding, oversight and support needed by the nationwide network of Small Business Development Centers. " { see: https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/osbdc and https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/osbdc/resources/11409 }If you decide to explore obtaining a patent your inventions, WISC can help at very low costs to do some basic research, such as prior art searching (I understand that they use UWW students to do searching, which helps keep costs down. But, it also means that you won't be getting the experience and knowledge of an experienced searcher in the art ("I know I saw something like that during that search I did last year...." ), but if they can find knock-out prior art (art that is exactly like your invention, which means you can't get a patent on the exact same thing) that means you won't pursue it any further, you get out with less total expense. But you may wish to continue on, because certain aspects of your invention are different and non-obvious in light of the prior art that has been found. Then you may wish to engage a professional search firm, or more likely hire a patent attorney or agent to help guide you - they may know a good professional search firm that has expertise in searching the relevant art (you generally don't want to hire someone who lacks some expertise in biotech to search your latest invention on DNA markers), or may have a search done in-house, or may advise you that what you have is likely good enough - it's a judgement call. You are not obliged to search for prior art, but you are obliged to tell the US patent office of relevant art that you know about. The reason for doing any prior art searching prior to filing a patent application at all is two-fold. First, to see if there is knock out prior art or art so close that you don't see any value in going forward at all, thereby saving the cost of preparing an application. Second, to help shape the claims in the patent application to avoid the (claim - invalidating) prior art you found, so that your application is more likely to get through to issuance without amendment, saving prosecution costs..Now how do you choose a patent attorney or agent to hire? You can ask people you know and trust for recommendations - your general practice attorney may know someone he /she feels comfortable recommending based on past experiences; you may know another inventor and ask about their attorney/agent. You can look in the yellow pages locally, ask your local bar association for a referral, or check a national website like Martindale.com. You might look at the names of lawyers/law firms on patents that you've found during your prior art search that look particularly well written, clear and detailed - although you many not be able to engage that firm due to conflicts of interets with their pre-existing client, maybe you can, or maybe they can make a referral to a firm whose work they admire. Remember, nowadays, with unlimited free calling, skype, computers, etc., you aren't limited to IP professionals in your immediate locale. I've filed and prosecuted patent applications for clients from all over the world, many of whom I never met in person. Many companies and universities recognize the value of utilizing an experienced patent firm with a lower cost of overhead , and corresponding lower rates, in a place like Toledo, Ohio, in preference to a firm in a locale with higher overhead costs, and higher prevailing hourly rates, in a place like New York, Chicago, or San Francisco. On the other hand, it is certainly nice to be able to meet your attorney/agent in person. But realize, in my experience, I usually only meet even a local client once or twice in the course of prosecuting a particular patent application. I was certainly open to it, but most people realize that it was more economical in both their time, and my time /their money, to meet to go over the invention, and then conduct all other business by mail or email and phone (except maybe to go over a first Office Action, and usually not even then). If there is a difference in cost of a hundred dollars an hour or more between the hourly rates of a local attorney and a distant one, the price of a plane fare may be minor expense.One thing I would encourage you to look at is the US Patent Office's Scam Prevention page ( http://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/using-legal-services/scam-prevention ). There are some companies (many of whom seem to have advertised on late night commercials/infomercials) who are alleged to have overcharged gullible clients, while delivering inferior products (such as a design patent, instead of a more invention-appropriate utility patent).Be careful, be informed.

Is it really so?Who are these guys then?Prof. Ismail AkbayAkbay was personally selected by Dr. Wernher von Braun, the famous astronautical engineer, to be the lead aerospace engineer for the F1 Engine Integration on the Apollo Saturn V-S1C Rocket. Mr. Akbay also spearheaded the Saturn 1B/H-1 Engine Integration for the Apollo-Soyuz Rendezvous Mission. Between 1963 and 1975, Akbay served in various managerial capacities during NASA's Apollo, Skylab, and Apollo-Soyuz projects.His 31-year career at NASA earned him recognition as one of American's early space pioneers. In Turkey, at the end of the 1960s, newspaper headlines heralded him as the "Turkish Villager Who Helped Put Man on the Moon".Prof. Arsev EraslanProf. Eraslan has taught courses in mechanical and aerospace engineering, engineering science, applied mathematics, and computational sciences. He has worked on numerous research programs for development of state-of-the-art computational models and software technologies, which were funded by NASA and other federal agencies.During the 1960s, at the University of Tennessee Space Institute and Arnold Engineering Development Center, Prof. Eraslan was part of a NASA aerospace research and development team which designed computational models to simulate hypersonic shock flow conditions and thermal protection for the Apollo atmospheric reentry capsules. Modified versions of these models were also used to simulate high-temperature, chemically reacting flow conditions in rocket nozzles and propulsion systems. He also planned and developed advanced research projects relating to high-speed flow analyses for NASA and the U.S. Air Force.Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, Prof. Eraslan developed scientific models, which justified the licensing of nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants in the U.S. Also during this period, Prof. Eraslan developed two and three-dimensional GIS computer graphics software, which was used for the assessment of the environmental impact of large-scale projects like electric-power generation and the MX Missile System.During the 1980s, Prof. Eraslan developed computational models for the multi-phase hydrothermal conditions in crystal-growth experiments. These were included in the NASA Space Shuttle Micro-gravity Science Program.During the late 1980s and early 1990s, Prof. Eraslan supported the NASA Center for Space Transportation and Advanced Research project by developing the first three-dimensional computational model for simulating solid-liquid-gas hydro-thermal conditions of high-temperature metal alloys both in normal gravity and micro-gravity environments.From 1996 to 2001, Prof. Eraslan served as Chief Scientist for NASA`s National Technology Center, responsible for transferring available scientific/engineering research results, know-how, and software to the private sector for commercialization by U.S. companies. In a dual role, Prof. Eraslan also directed a new research program for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, and Office of Science and Technology, which resulted in the first three-dimensional Integrated Law Enforcement Face Identification System. This revolutionary system, based on NASA technology, was televised internationally on MSNBC and Discovery Channel.Dr. Sırrı OğuzNASA Spacecraft System Manager, MSc Engineer.He was born in 1966 in Sinop. After graduating from Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1987, he received master's degrees in aircraft engineering from Ohio State University in the USA and aerospace engineering from the University of California. Between 1994-2008, he worked as a project and design engineer on pyrotechnic materials and pilot ejection seats used in aircraft and space systems. He has been working as a manned spacecraft pyrotechnic systems manager at NASA Johnson Space Center since 2008.Prof. Arif KarabeyoğluAerospace Engineer, Academician, and General Manager of the Turkish Space Rocket company Delta-V who works for the indigenous Turkish Space rocket systems.Dr. Karabeyoglu has performed extensive research and development activities in the field of chemical propulsion and green energy with emphasis on the creation of new concepts and their implementation to real-life systems. He has been the Program Manager and Principal Investigator for a wide range of programs for clients such as the Air Force, NASA, FAA, and Scaled Composites. Dr. Karabeyoglu has actively participated in a number of accident/mishap investigations including Scaled Composite’s Tier 1B accident. Dr. Karabeyoglu has numerous journal articles, conference papers, and patents. He has authored a book chapter on the instabilities in hybrid rocket propulsion systems. Dr. Karabeyoglu presently serves on the Expert Advisory Board that oversees the safe development of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo rocket propulsion system.Dr. Umut YıldızDr. Yildiz is working at the Spectrum Engineering group of Communication Architectures and Research section of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) (JPL), California Institute of Technology (Home). He received his Bachelors degree from the University of Ankara (Ankara University Kreiken Observatory), Masters degree from the Kapteyn Astronomical Institute (Kapteyn Instituut) (University of Groningen), and his PhD from the Leiden Observatory (Leiden Observatory)(Leiden University) on the field of Molecular Astrophysics. He contributed to the teams for many years, where the discovery of water and oxygen molecules in star-forming regions using the Herschel Space Observatory took place. His research interests are deep space telecommunications, star formation, and data mining.Dr. Yildiz works as a researcher in the fields of deep space communication and astrophysics at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).Bio - Dr. Umut YildizDr. Ahmet AkgirayBoard member of the Turkish Space Association.Dr. Ahmed Akgiray received his undergraduate degree from Cornell University in 2005, his master's degree at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2007, and his doctorate at the California Institute of Technology (California Institute of Technology) in April 2013. ) completed. Before starting his doctorate, he worked as an RF/microwave engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory on two space projects: Mars Science Laboratory and Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP).Dr. Akgiray's research focuses on microwave circuits and systems, RF/microwave embedded circuits, electromagnetism, antennas, and remote sensing. In particular, he works on active (radar) and passive (radiometer) microwave remote sensing systems for ground, aircraft, and satellite platforms.Ahmed Akgiray | Özyeğin ÜniversitesiProf. Dilhan EryurtAfter graduating from Istanbul University High Mathematics and Astronomy Department in 1946, she worked as an honorary assistant for Tevfik Okyay Kabakçıoğlu, who was appointed to open an astronomy department at Ankara University. She continued her graduate studies at the University of Michigan for a while and completed her doctorate at the Department of Astrophysics at Ankara University in 1953, and then her associate professorship.In 1959, she went to Canada for two years on a scholarship from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Eryurt worked with Alastari G.W Cameron at the Deep River Atomic Energy Laboratory. She studied hydrogen stars and wrote many successful programs on the structural models of stars. Then she went to the USA and first worked at Indiana University in the USA with the scholarship of the American Soroptimist Federation. Eryurt got acquainted with making star models at the University's Goethe Link Observatory. Dr. Eryurt later worked with Marshall Wrubel.After this experience, she received a National Academy of Sciences scholarship and worked at NASA's Goddard Space Research Institute. During her tenure at the Goddard Space Research Institute, which conducts theoretical research on space flights, she was the only female astronomer working at the institution.Studies conducted by Alastair G. W. Cameron and Dilhan Eryurt at the Goddard Institute, who conducted research on the structure of the sun, its evolution, and the calculation of neutrinos from the sun, revealed some false facts about the sun until then. She revealed that the brightness of the sun has not increased since its inception, it has been much brighter and warmer in the past. Her work was important to affect the course of space flights that had just begun at that time.She was awarded the Apollo Achievement Award in 1969 for her successful work for the first landing on the moon. After completing two years of study at the Goddard Institute, Eryurt was given an uncommon privilege to foreigners and continued to work at the institute as a senior researcher. The institute sent her to the University of California to learn new information for her research on the formation and development of stars. Regarding the issue of the influence of their mass on the evolution of stars, A.G.W. An article he wrote with Cameron in 1967 was widely cited in astrophysics.Between 1969-1973, she took a break from her duty at METU and continued scientific research at NASA. She returned to METU Physics Department in 1973 and established the astrophysics department. She was awarded with Tübitak Science Service and Encouragement Award in 1977. After serving as the head of the physics department for about six months in 1988, she was the dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences for five years. Eryurt played a role in the establishment of a star observatory in METU in 1991. Eryurt, who had 59 publications, 46 in English and 13 in Turkish, published between 1956 and 2009, retired in 1993. Turkey honorary member of the Academy of Sciences was elected in 1997.She has died in 2012. RIP.Prof. Feryal ÖzelShe was the leader of the team who could capture for the first time the Black Hole in 2019.Her research interests are in black holes, neutron stars, and theoretical astrophysics. Özel has been working at NASA since 2001, whose academic career was shaped at US universities such as Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton, and at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland, and at the Neils Bohr Institute in Denmark. In 2003, she was recognized as one of the "Big Ideas of the Future" list with the world's best-known scientists.The Modeling and Analysis Working Group, headed by Özel, who is working on imaging black holes, which Albert Einstein mentioned in the Theory of Relativity, but could not be visualized because it absorbs the telescope rays, managed to produce a single photograph in 2019 by combining millions of data obtained from different telescopes.Dr. Bülent KızıltanPresident of the Turkish Astronomical Society.Currently Associate/Astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.Harvard University faculty member Turkish astrophysicist Assoc. Dr. Bülent Kızıltan has written its name in the history of astronomy by finding the first "medium mass" "black hole" that the scientific world has been discussing for 50 years.The 'small' and 'large' densities of 'black holes' formed by the collapse of stars under their own gravity after consuming their 'fuel' and consuming hundreds or even thousands of times greater mass than the sun have been observed and proven so far. Since their gravitational forces reached extraordinary levels due to their collapse under their giant masses, "black holes", from which even light cannot escape, should have a "middle" sibling, it was an issue that astrophysicists had been discussing for 50 years.The list is so long, that my hands already are in pain right now.What do you mean those guys are doing when they are no space engineers or astrophysicists actually?Or who has developed and build all of these?Or with what they have sent this rocket into space?With donkeys or camels?And for what Turkey maintains 17 Astrophysics Faculties and 25 Aerospace Engineering Faculties in Turkey with hundreds of yearly graduates?Thanks.picture sources: Google images

Thomas Johnson gets it about right. Even non-elite universities are in an arms race to seem attractive to students who might apply. You might argue, with some justice, that this is the university's fault, but it references a much larger problem. Today's students want dorm rooms that are at least as good (ideally better) than their bedroom at home, a new fitness center that looks great even if most students use it only a few times, and Internet speeds much better than at home. Parents also demand more from students services -- career centers, health and especially psychiatry availability, etc.Athletics are a financial problem. Only 5 or 10 universities actually break even or have a profit -- the usual suspects (Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, etc.). Donations that arguably would not go to academic purposes (although there's no good data that this is the case) make up part. But most universities are out of pocket a significant amount. Why? Because the alumni demand it, and guess what? Students like to attend schools with good jock teams. When you have a head football coach making more than the president, usually by a significant amount, you've got problems. Financial aid to jocks is a huge expense, partially covered by endowment and donations but a double cost to the university which has to come up with the scholarship money for the jocks and loses the opportunity to have tuition paying students fill their places.Universities need new buildings with new technology and in the case of science buildings to house the latest equipment. Classrooms that are often hard to fit into building plans are very expensive. Guess what? Universities that have smaller classes require more classrooms. Gone are the days when a builder came in, looked around and built a functional building that more or less matched the rest of the buildings. Architects (often famous ones) cost money; they build pretty buildings. I'm guessing that building supplies have risen more than the general cost of living.Utilities have risen dramatically, and again much more than cost of living generally.Library costs have gone up exponentially. It's not uncommon for major scientific journals to cost $3000 or $4000 a year as subscriptions. All institutions that sponsor journals charge far more for library subscriptions than for individual. Well, let's just go all electronic. Makes sense. Yes, except the charges for electronic subscriptions are usually the same as for paper and often require that the library purchase paper copies to get the on-line stuff. Has anyone noticed that books seem to cost a whole lot more now than then. Well they do, and the rise is more than inflation. Students who used to buy a semester's load of books for $100 now sometimes pay double that amount for one book -- science texts often even more (and, no, Kindle will not solve that problem) Book budgets for libraries have again risen faster than inflation, much faster.Most of a university's budget goes for salaries. Faculty are now paid a living wage, some would argue too handsomely. Some faculty get really high salaries, but it costs big bucks to get a famous person on board. Why does that matter? Arms race, again. On the other hand, famous faculty attract other famous faculty, and more research money, and better graduate students, and, also, better undergraduates, perhaps for the wrong reasons. Many students (and their parents) like the possibility that they can take a class with a Nobel Prize winner, but in many places will never lay eyes on him or her. And while we're on salaries don't forget to add in contributions to retirement and health care, which seems to be going up at a rapid rate.Administrative costs at universities have risen dramatically as they have at almost all other organizations. Partially that's because of increased reporting responsibilities, more regulations, etc. At my former university when I arrived in 1989 the legal staff was one half time person borrowed from a major law firm in town. Now there is a whole office with several lawyer, all paid living wages I assume. I frankly have no idea what they do, but I'm pretty sure that they're busy. In fact I know they are.Several people have pointed to research costs. That's difficult to access. In most major universities research is largely funded by outside grants and is therefore self-supporting. In addition most grants come with indirect costs theoretically to support utilities, library costs etc. It's a big source of income, and major research universities would fold without indirect costs. There are other research costs, of course. Some graduate students may not have stipends that are fully covered by grants. and the university picks up the tab. Typically graduate students pay no tuition or it is paid by a funding agency. That makes graduate education very expensive as faculty devote more time to non-tuition paying students than those who pay (like undergraduates). Labs are built and remodeled by the university. New faculty off get substantial start-up costs to get their research off and running. There are, of course also research costs in the humanities although not nearly as much.Computer costs. Don't get me started. Faculty typically get a personal computer, but usually not top of the line. But the big expense is in maintaining the campus network and connections to the Internet. Gotta have it for research, for instruction, and to appeal to students. Classrooms have to be wired with the latest and greatest.And speaking of graduate education most law schools and business schools are self-supporting although not necessarily when utilities, maintenance., etc is included. Medical school lose incredible amounts of money although you need a PhD in accounting to try to figure out what medical education costs. It's complicated, but no matter how you do the spread sheet, medical schools are money swamps.Tuition costs a lot, but at most elite and semi-elite places something between one-third and one half of tuition is given back by scholarships, some externally funded, but at most places the university simply eats the expense. Some financial aid is in the form of loans or work, but many places put a cap on how much scholarship aid can be loans.As others have pointed out American universities not only look better (and often for good reasons), have better labs and libraries, what I'll call amenities are much better, dorms exist (which is often not the case in other countries) and are generally pretty nice, and faculty salaries relative to averages are higher. Of course, in US universities students actually attend classes (well at least sometimes) and don't end up in crowded lecture halls with little chance of access to instructors or even the ability to be able to take courses they need because they are over-enrolled.. Kids here have it much better, perhaps that's good, perhaps not. But that's what the market demands. And it's probably good generally.It has become a mantra of conservatives that the problem is the easy availability of loans. Because students can get easy money to pay for their expenses universities have no incentive to curtail costs. That's is very simplistic and mostly wrong. Universities don't run on money provided by student loans. Tuition (whether from loans or parents) typically pays about 25% of the cost of universities. The part supported by loans is some fraction of that and although it's not a trivial part of the budget, it's not a major part either. The fantasy (and it is that) seems to be that if we didn't give students loans, suddenly kids would stop applying and colleges would be forced through some logic of supply and demand to lower costs. Unfortunately it simply won't work generally. If everyone had to pay the full cost state universities and less elite ones probably would suffer a decline in applications and enrollments. However, most costs are not easily lowered. The easiest place would be in terms of building maintenance and salaries. The former means just kicking a can down the street, and if faculty salaries were frozen or, god forbid lowered, many would leave the profession or gravitate to places where they could make more money. Good riddance? Well, not really. We really don't need that kind of brain drain, already a major problem in the sciences. But the major solution, already occurring, is that instead of paying professors say $100,000 a year we'll hire adjuncts or graduate students to do the teaching. So let's do the math. Our mythical tenured professor teaches say 5 classes (although most teach fewer especially at the more elite universities) so that works out to $20,000 a class. But we can hire an adjunct for maybe as low as $5000 a class (what my previous university paid), and you don't have to have a degree in higher math to see where that's going. Also you don't have to pay retirement or health insurance, which adds something on the order of 20% to the salary of our professor. Now I should be very clear that many adjuncts work harder at teaching that tenure-track faculty and some are actually more effective at it. But they can't write effective letters of recommendation, provide research opportunities or even spend much time with students out of class as they rush from one teaching assignment to another.If we reduced loan opportunities the Harvards and Stanfords would still flourish quite nicely although they would probably be even more populated by rich kids. There are always going to be parents who are willing to pay almost anything so that they can have bragging rights about where their children go. It's hard to predict what might happen at state universities, but certainly the general consensus has been that education at such places has generally worsened once states stopped contributing as much. Cutting costs isn't going to make things better -- just cheaper. There seems to be some assumption that university administrations raise tuition on what amounts to a whim without worrying about the effects on their students. Nothing could be further from the truth. Raising tuition is usually an agonizing decision,, and one not taken lightly.Cutting down loan possibilities as a way of putting pressure on universities is about the same as cutting government spending to reduce the deficit. In principle that sounds great, but in practice it's hard to get agreement on what to cut and most of the items that are easiest to cut have little impact on over-all spending. For better or worse in some important respects higher education is beyond the laws of supply and demand. In that it's like American medicine.There's much more to be said, and I agree that in some ways higher education is out of wack or at least has screwy priorities. But it's hard to make education cheaper, and college administrators spend a huge amount of their time trying to figure out ways to lower costs within the various constraints they have. There are some things we could do to make education cheaper, but most would decrease the perceived and probably real benefits. What we might do is for a different discussion but curtaining loans is not a good idea because it would not solve the problem and would make it harder for poor kids, who most need the education, to go to college.ADDITION 3/12/19: Recently Rice University announced a policy of free tuition for children from families that make less than $130,000/yr, and no tuition or room and board fees for those making less than $65,000/yr. Students who come from families making less than $200,000/yr will also not be required to take out loans although they will be expected to earn money during the summer or while on campus. Most elite universities have adopted similar programs. At Rice tuition is $47000, room & board $14000, fees are $745, and books $1200. Harvard, Stanford, etc. are slightly greater.Of course, many private colleges are more dependent on tuition income and cannot afford to be so generous, but even there financial aid often covers a substantial part of costs. State universities, of course, are much cheaper and generally have fewer resources to offset tuition. In that regard it’s important to note that one reason tuition has risen so fast at state universities is because almost all state legislatures have cut their support of higher education dramatically. As one example, in 1984 the state of Texas paid 47% of the costs of the budget at the University of Texas, with tuition accounting for 5%; in 2018 the state paid 12% and tuition revenues 21%. Now there is a legitimate argument that students who benefit from a college degree should pay for it rather than the state. But that is short-sighted since the entire state benefits from having well educated folks around and about. By the same logic, I who have no children in elementary and high school should not be “forced” to pay for the education of the children across the street who go to public schools. Historically Americans have always believed that support for education provided general benefits and should be paid by all. At any rate, the primary reason for rising costs at state universities has been the decreasing support from the state. Whether that is fair or wise can be debated.