Getting a patent?

[Christoffer Glans]

So, I'm curious how this is achieved as a global patent how it's handled. I'm no inventor who's regulary inventing stuff, but I have a few ideas, but no project going. How much does it cost, what does it take and so on to get a patent for an invention or idea about an invention? How detailed should the invention be described and do I only need a description or something more?

I know there are a lot in here that actually made stuff and patented ideas so I hope there are some answers to this.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Lots of money. Each patent system is seperate to some extent, but done agreements make it easier. Plus, I did the K is what all the changes have been in the last two decades. People like Eric and Jeff would be more knowledgable.
Size there are treaties that allow lodging between seperate counties, but still may require fees for translation etc etc (the fees go on). So, seperate lodging and translation for all other relevant countries. Around hundreds of countries now. So, what used to happen. Is they just lodged in the main markets where you made most of your money, to save money. That used to be in fyrsr world countries.

Just because you lodge and pay for a patent, doesn't mean you have the expensive money to defend or enforce it. The court cases cost heaos. Invalidating a invalid patent, believe it or not also costed heaps (Don't know if any progress on that). So companies just paid jacked up fees rather than fight the court case. There are companies out there that look for parents by people that can't defend them, to use them or beak them. A guy I know was involved in the biggest computer technology patent dispute of the day.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Ok, so it's not economical to get a global patent and sit on it. Meaning, if I have an idea, but neither the means or money to build even a prototype, I cannot safeguard my intelectual property for it? I have an idea for a camera related equipment that I would much like to share with those that has the means to produce it and manage manufacture and sales, but that's just it. I got the idea, I don't have the engineering skills or knowledge to know if it would work or not, but if I'm able to get a deal together with someone who does and can, I'm up for that for a share of the profit of that gear when the time comes.

Only problem is that coming from nothing when it comes to entrepreneurial stuff I don't have any real knowledge of the legal workings behind how such a thing is done and I don't know what level of percentage I can get out of just having the initial idea. I know what I want the gear to do and I know where the bar should be set for the product so I can test it and push the development in the right direction, but the actual development is not something I have any knowledge into.

What should I do in this situation?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

There are a lot of resources on the web. Here in the US there are businesses that will help you to get the idea off the ground with patent pending, etc. 1 year protection for a small fee. Patents are expensive and everyone (the gov-t , lawyers, etc.) wants a cut before you get any money from it. Ultimately, patent is worthless if you can't defend it in court, which is more money, time and aggravation. It may be worth it but, realistically, 99% of the time it is not for a small invention...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

There are a lot of resources on the web. Here in the US there are businesses that will help you to get the idea off the ground with patent pending, etc. 1 year protection for a small fee. Patents are expensive and everyone (the gov-t , lawyers, etc.) wants a cut before you get any money from it. Ultimately, patent is worthless if you can't defend it in court, which is more money, time and aggravation. It may be worth it but, realistically, 99% of the time it is not for a small invention...

So if I have an idea, but not the means to produce or develop it. What would be the best course of action?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

The best way would be to approach a business that you think could engineer and produce it, get them to sign NDA (non disclosure agreement) and share your idea. There is never a guarantee they won't take off with it, you just hope the NDA and their integrity will persevere...

 

[Eric Lange]

So if I have an idea, but not the means to produce or develop it. What would be the best course of action?

OK the 3minute off the top of my head version.

I/we can help (if need be)...

I'm going through a new phase for investing in new/more comprehensive manufacturing equipment well suited for very complex work and short runs also as well as reasonable volume.

6 month time line on that.

I have authored my patents to grant in a number of different territories.

Saved myself a tone of $ by doing these myself with patent attorneys and lawyers that let me do 95% of the work myself.

Personally I think US patents are excellent value... A market of 300 million people for a filling and renewal fees that are fairly moderate.

Some of the European territories aren't to bad with either.

Not always the case that people get screwed if your patents are valuable to someone else (like SONY) for example, the suits will turn up with pre-drafted agreements to either buy or license your tech. In the case of SONY you don't have much wiggle room, i.e. take their offer or not...

If you are willing to put the time in MUCH can be done.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Side note: When we get really jiggy with our work flow we might try to make custom accessories to solve particular problems for RED_Users... Still kinda digging the idea of a "Red economy" maybe via HYDROGEN and the imaginary idea of RED-Tokens.

@ Christoff feel free to PM me and anything you share I will keep in the strictest confidence and also you have some RED "Homies" here as witness to that

__________________________________________________________________________________

My advise would be go search the patent literature for the closest thing you can find for what you want to do... See how well written patents are authored and also learn the structure and meaning of the claims. I have to say some of the RED related RED patens are well written. Also for comparison look at some German patents as they are much more direct in terms of background section/ "Prior art" versus problem solved .

__________________________________________________________


Remember criteria of NEW, NON-OBVIOUS and USEFUL... (for patentability) and remember you have to create legal structure and claims for what you seek to protect or what aspects you seek protection for. Your legal language has to be unambiguous in respect of pre-ceding inventions and similar sounding claims.

Your patent description needs to be sufficient for someone else to be able to perform the invention by your description.

The initial filing or provisional application can indeed be more general and discursive and filed without claims... In the USA there is a distinction between being able to use the invention and sell it for roughly 12 months (public disclosure) before some kind of patent filing but in Europe you need to keep the dust sheet on your invention until you have filed a patent application.

________________________________________________________

Final note: Be very careful of any public domain type disclosure as that will completely invalidate your patent/ patent filings... So like don't explain it great detail in a public forum and such, or put it out there in articles or on the web or even in an academic paper or thesis.

________________________________________________________

NDA's don't trust or rely on those as IME people rarely keep their mouths shut so don't share anything that you don't want public or know that you are working with people that have a very good track record for keeping their mouths shut/ be completely discrete in complete confidence.

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

I'm a photographer and longtime lurker here on Reduser, but my full-time job is to write and prosecute patents on behalf of inventors (I'm a US patent agent registered to practice with the US Patent and Trademark Office).

In short, there's no simple answer to your questions. As Jacek alluded to, I'd first figure out if there's a market for your technology and if there's money to be made by either making and selling your tech or licensing it to someone else, because it may or may not be worth even pursuing a patent depending on those factors alone.

You also asked about how much info is needed. In the US, the application must be enabling to someone of skill in the art. In lay mans terms, that just means you have be descriptive enough so that someone can make and use your invention based on the information in the patent. What qualifies as "descriptive enough" will depend on the technology involved.

You don't necessarily need a working prototype depending on the technology involved, but since you admittedly don't have the skill or knowledge to make it or even know if it works, I'd find an individual or individuals that can help you bridge that gap in knowledge. Keep in mind that if they contribute ideas that lead to a working prototype, they would be considered co-inventors. If you're not sure if it would even work, I'd recommend finding an answer to that question at some point in the process.

I'm happy to help answer specific patent-related questions if you PM me.

Edit: Eric also had some good advice. Do an extensive prior art search to make sure that (a) no one has made your invention and (b) you can look to similar patents for guidance. Best practice is also to get the application filed before any sort of public disclosure. The US does have a grace period, but you're not doing yourself any favors by disclosing before filing, and this could kill your chances of a patent in other markets that don't have a grace period. As Eric also said, you want to keep in mind the novel and non-obvious aspects of whatever technology it is.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Ok, so it's not economical to get a global patent and sit on it. Meaning, if I have an idea, but neither the means or money to build even a prototype, I cannot safeguard my intelectual property for it? I have an idea for a camera related equipment that I would much like to share with those that has the means to produce it and manage manufacture and sales, but that's just it. I got the idea, I don't have the engineering skills or knowledge to know if it would work or not, but if I'm able to get a deal together with someone who does and can, I'm up for that for a share of the profit of that gear when the time comes.

Only problem is that coming from nothing when it comes to entrepreneurial stuff I don't have any real knowledge of the legal workings behind how such a thing is done and I don't know what level of percentage I can get out of just having the initial idea. I know what I want the gear to do and I know where the bar should be set for the product so I can test it and push the development in the right direction, but the actual development is not something I have any knowledge into.

What should I do in this situation?

Eric gave a very good nutshell of the patent basics.

Often the most realistic protection is simply to get out and make it and sell it before anyone else.

You say you have neither the means or money to prototype - but one approach is if it is a mainly mechanical device simply to find a good machine shop with modern CNC equipment and go to them with the basic idea and a simple NDA. Many of them are fairly entrepreneurial and If it seems reasonable to them they may partner with you. The same sort of thing applies if it is primarily electronic - there are many electrical engineers/designers that enjoy working on the side and may be interested as well. In some ways these type of job shops can be safer because of the nature of their business they have some legal obligations to be discreet even beyond if they are locked up with NDAs.

Although I have my own (fairly old) HAAS VF1 CNC machine, I have taken several of my more complex parts to other shops, that not only can make it but help me refine the design. Many of those guys are really good engineers as well because they work with CAD/CAM every day and often have a deeper knowledge than some design engineers of how things actually have to get fixtured and made and can steer you in a direction that may be both a better product and more cost effective to manufacture.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

The concept of not needing to produce a working prototype of the invention is incredibly retarded in my mind.

As if ideas count. Ideas are like your friends' mobile app ideas—they're nothing.

It's the drive and determination, and the skill involved, to produce an actual prototype—and its design—that's worth protecting.

But then again, I hear there are countries where you're entitled to large sums of money for stumbling over your own feet or burning yourself on hot beverages or jumping from buildings in super hero costumes that didn't sufficiently warn you that "you can not fly in this cape".

 

[Eric Lange]

I'm a photographer and longtime lurker here on Reduser, but my full-time job is to write and prosecute patents on behalf of inventors (I'm a US patent agent registered to practice with the US Patent and Trademark Office).

In short, there's no simple answer to your questions. As Jacek alluded to, I'd first figure out if there's a market for your technology and if there's money to be made by either making and selling your tech or licensing it to someone else, because it may or may not be worth even pursuing a patent depending on those factors alone.

You also asked about how much info is needed. In the US, the application must be enabling to someone of skill in the art. In lay mans terms, that just means you have be descriptive enough so that someone can make and use your invention based on the information in the patent. What qualifies as "descriptive enough" will depend on the technology involved.

You don't necessarily need a working prototype depending on the technology involved, but since you admittedly don't have the skill or knowledge to make it or even know if it works, I'd find an individual or individuals that can help you bridge that gap in knowledge. Keep in mind that if they contribute ideas that lead to a working prototype, they would be considered co-inventors. If you're not sure if it would even work, I'd recommend finding an answer to that question at some point in the process.

I'm happy to help answer specific patent-related questions if you PM me.

Edit: Eric also had some good advice. Do an extensive prior art search to make sure that (a) no one has made your invention and (b) you can look to similar patents for guidance. Best practice is also to get the application filed before any sort of public disclosure. The US does have a grace period, but you're not doing yourself any favors by disclosing before filing, and this could kill your chances of a patent in other markets that don't have a grace period. As Eric also said, you want to keep in mind the novel and non-obvious aspects of whatever technology it is.

Great to know there is someone here that is skilled and practiced in the "Art" of

I'm a photographer and longtime lurker here on Reduser, but my full-time job is to write and prosecute patents on behalf of inventors (I'm a US patent agent registered to practice with the US Patent and Trademark Office).

That makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up in a good way.

Also good advice for Christoph you offer!

On a lot of industrial forums people ask for Patent advise and "They" often completely ignore it as it doesn't seem to fit their weird reality... Never the less my ultimate fallback position has been to form a type of invent-help that is very cost effective and REAL and able to really "Bring -it" for certain application areas and also frankly help people NOT to burn $ or funds as theses so called 'Invent help" agencies are there just to take your money... I'd rather try to help people much like how I started out in a much more real way. I had terrible advise from the patent agents we had but through trial and error and working with patent agents and examiners in many different territories from Canada to Japan... I have learnt a lot but having learnt all that I think I would do things very differently now and will probably do things differently in the future.

_________________________________________________________________________

@Todd C. Deveau maybe put something in your footer that reminds folks that's you wheelhouse too... At least it will help me remember ;-) / lol !

Best,

Eric

 

[Eric Lange]

Eric gave a very good nutshell of the patent basics.

Often the most realistic protection is simply to get out and make it and sell it before anyone else.

You say you have neither the means or money to prototype - but one approach is if it is a mainly mechanical device simply to find a good machine shop with modern CNC equipment and go to them with the basic idea and a simple NDA. Many of them are fairly entrepreneurial and If it seems reasonable to them they may partner with you. The same sort of thing applies if it is primarily electronic - there are many electrical engineers/designers that enjoy working on the side and may be interested as well. In some ways these type of job shops can be safer because of the nature of their business they have some legal obligations to be discreet even beyond if they are locked up with NDAs.

Although I have my own (fairly old) HAAS VF1 CNC machine, I have taken several of my more complex parts to other shops, that not only can make it but help me refine the design. Many of those guys are really good engineers as well because they work with CAD/CAM every day and often have a deeper knowledge than some design engineers of how things actually have to get fixtured and made and can steer you in a direction that may be both a better product and more cost effective to manufacture.

@ Michael H , that's cool you have a VF1! Awesome! !!!!


I'm a great believer in design for manufacture... Can really improve things and improve efficiency and style of design too in some cases. Love that closer iterative "loop" much more cost effective for what we need to do. Like being very hands on but have also pummeled really good machinists for decades now to help derive better design and manufacturing solutions especially for high precision "Kit" .

We're going all out (six month time line) on a MAZAK (Integrex) i-200 full five axis mill /turn 60" between centers especially for shaft work. Very high accuracy "Rig" work envelope fit very well for what we need and anything beyond that we will "farm out". Denver CO and NM have some good shops/machine shops.

@Michael, So wherever you are you must be in contact with "Nice machine shops"...

Often I hear grumbles from some machine shop owners that are allergic to "Inventors" unless they have a more hands on prototype shop. Short run complex ill defined stuff is not what most "Job shops " want but some prototyping outfits are more "Up for it!".

So typically they won't sign NDAs... Secondly if someone sees it and its a good idea someone WILL knock it off. I have development partners / preorder partner that I have not shared out designs for that reason... Once someone visually see's a solution or a really HOT f*cking design... All it takes is 15 seconds with a pair of eyeballs you can't delete that from someone's brain... And if a design engineer who has seen the visuals / renderings forced to come up with a similar design solution WILL gravitate to your deign inadvertently.


So that's our thing, we do keep stuff secret, good at wearing different hats, so we cover software, electronics and CNC 5axis CAD/Cam... + our own designs and SW etc. plus experience in very high precision relevant systems/metrology + IP / patents (successfully).

That's why I bang on about developing more generalized capabilities just in case our main thrust falls completely flat we still have stuff we can do No matter what!

 

[Terry VerHaar]

wow - the resources you stumble upon here on RU! Cool.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Originally Posted by AndreeMarkefors View Post
The concept of not needing to produce a working prototype of the invention is incredibly retarded in my mind.

If that's (retarded) what passes as a constructive contribution to the subject from your incredible mind, personally, I would not mind if you kept that to yourself.

I don't think that was personal I think he means the fact that the government does not require a working prototype.

 

[Eric Lange]

The concept of not needing to produce a working prototype of the invention is incredibly retarded in my mind.

As if ideas count. Ideas are like your friends' mobile app ideas—they're nothing.

It's the drive and determination, and the skill involved, to produce an actual prototype—and its design—that's worth protecting.

But then again, I hear there are countries where you're entitled to large sums of money for stumbling over your own feet or burning yourself on hot beverages or jumping from buildings in super hero costumes that didn't sufficiently warn you that "you can not fly in this cape".

I'm certainly not offended by what you wrote...

BUT the 79 year old woman that got burnt as result of bad industrial design and bad procedures at Mc Donald's got really messed up and severely burnt and had skin grafts and was disabled as a result... Really serious 3rd degree burns on a part of your anatomy that you would least like to have burnt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

^^^ Read the case as that's a Urban Myth that was unfortunately turned on its head by pretty slanderous individuals. The large sums of money were a punitive measure that was not even a drop in the bucket for McDo's and the woman just wanted compensation for her medical burns, grafts and care etc.

_________________________________________________________________________

Just a side note: Prototypes?

Sometimes for things that Patent examiner's don't understand it is necessary to demonstrate the invention to the examiner... It is possible to request that.

There are some big science / aerospace / Power generation applications / Nuclear and defense applications that would be pretty tricky to implement a demonstrable prototype (thankfully), but NEED protection for many reasons.

Does kinda make me think about Arthur C Clarke... who invented the communication's satellite... And also I believe wrote a book called "How I lost a Billion dollars" or something to that effect and always stated that "Patents" "are a license to sue [and] or be sued... " Basically Arthur did not file a patent for the communication's satellite but did get to work and consult at NASA though and is credited with it's invention.


So my old man was always very dismissive of patents (when he was alive) in my case I had no choice in terms of "Defensive" measures to nail down what is essentially my work. I put a shed load of research and time to derive the tech I/we have (all my own work initially) and needed the means to protect it. Rather than have my work be 100% taken... Given the choice (dum de dum de dum).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There is distinction between "Design" patents versus "Utility Patents" ... In Europe and UK you also have design copyright... There is always the option of trade secrets but harder to implement for OP's idea perhaps?

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Christopher. I'm going to have to cut my reading short here today.

Do lots and lots of reading and research into it, and doing business in it. It's bad and perilous.

Homies rates of disclosure doesn't cut it under patent laws. Specific nda agreements on disclosure is what is used. But companies are reluctant to sign as it ties up their hands and they may already have some related of part of your idea in house waiting to be used/patented. These days it is chronic not signing I understand. What the engineer in our organisation decades back used to advise, is to talk in general as not to reveal stuff before going to the nda where the detail and business research case can be established. But before the NDA and stamping everything commercial in confidence, trade secret etc (my memory is dim and bits have faded out) he said to file your patent application before you get there, so you have the number and they know they can't stuff you. This sets the clock, your fees, and your period to claim in different countries into motion (big expenses). Because a NDA normally has a short time out period of a year, and they are teluvtsntr rm on that. Socompanues, even big companies, I have been told, will try to wait out the one year and use invention for free unless you have the patent in place. So you make sure you have an party interested in doing business before you reveal, sort of thing. We were advised, usually not your market leader but the one that wants to be market leader instead or other such company that wants to get ahead, we were advised. Yet, you will get some engineers that want to discuss it privately without NDA, which is disclosure under patent law restricting ability to patent. An erbal nda is also not something you can take to court as easily to prove as a signed proper nda (get it all in writing is the saying). If you are dealing with paradigm shifts then merely the discussion of the direction or area it is in is enough to reveal the territory and allow them to get it and exploit it. Which makes discussion difficult.

Now, on a mass market product, 1-1.5% of retail price was easier. At each stage there are costs, risks and profit for manufacture, sales and distribution and retail. The the manufacture might say have 10% to play with. So asking fur 10% obviously is going leave them with no profit and even losses. Now, specialist equipment with have higher implementation costs and cost of manufacture, but big margins, and direct to public over the internet bigger potential ability for margins. So it is worth finding out from somebody in that specialist area what you should ask for.

Now what Eric said about companies like Sony turning up. If it is really I'm their interests or paradigm shaping then yes that's more possible.

Now, as far as invention companies, they want your money. If they have a relationship with a manufacture they can pass you on and make money or if not charge you and name money. What we found here decades ago, is that people were much more likely to get a deal if they did it right themselves, and highly likely to fork out money otherwise, without a deal.

Look up the resources on all these things. People like our Eric here, have high demand product, which is approached differently by others compared to normal product.

Investors, shudder,pick up resources, and even on different t types of investors on Wikipedia. You have got guys that will wamg most of everything, while putting you through the ringer. Leaving you with your invention with all the stress and work but not much percentage of invention. So them getting 80%+ is not uncommon.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Oh yes, getting an engineer to design a prototype means he owns the design, unless you have it specifically in the contract with the engineer, etc, that the design rights etc is transferred to you. Same as with paying photographers to take your portrate, they own the rights to the picture. There has. Ern exploitative engineers that will be paid to implement an invention and claim rights to.tje design telling you that if you even open it up they can sue you, expecting more money from you for the rights, having not disclosed this before they did the job. So you could be $20k-$50k or more on the hole to the engineer to do the design before you find out you don't own it and have to pay more. So be careful.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Andree, that is a bit of a fantasy. You mistake idea for mere notion. Ideas are the root of value, as "without an idea" you literally can't do much. And people without an idea of what or how to do something that works or is an real advancememt seem to dream it is by their power that they should conquer and posses the ideas of others, as they are themselves as worth something, but without somebody else's flame they tend not to have much except admiration of other powerful successful people, maybe with a Donald Trump poster. They can sit down dumb founded for months and years trying to figure out something as significant as the ideasmith can in a werk or minutes, and still come out with some crude rubbish or half arse work. So, the value of an idea is maybe 100 times or more than that of notion of an idea in that scenario. Plenty of monkies to implement and manufacture other's rare unique ideas. Life is collaborative. Some people's flame is to have worked out and reasoned ideas, another to have money to pay it, another flame to implement it and another flame to refine that implementation, another to manufacture it, another with flame to deliver it, another to sell it, and another to see it's worth buying and buy it. For thousands of years the world lived in dark ages until the ability of idea smiths were more respected, and here we are. Otherwise we would be in caves or feilds feeding on what we find, maybe not even with weapons, or wiped out. It is the worked out idea that in its own part made the difference. But takers rather than givers think they are the significant ones what they can take rather than generate, but stall us and even put us backwards. The implemtors dream it is about them, and try to take. The humble ideasmith guess on, benefiting his brothers.

An idea, instead of a mere notion, is a fully formed with how it works and even why, idea capable of being implemented by others from the description. Notions are "I'm going make the sky purple" (for money) or "I'm going to make an app to write letters", but how?? The how 8s made up of a structure of concepts and working out. So, idea upon idea, with how, is how things are actually done. Now, actual implementation takes the how and why an implementation it is some way. The details of one of many implementations of the how and why doesn't matter so much. It is like saying must be enclosed in a container to prevent leakage, which shape it doesn't matter, then arguing over normal rounded corners or normal squared corners in implementation. That's why there were patents and seperate designs and copyright. How and why of the functioning is important, without which you are implementing?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Oh yes, getting an engineer to design a prototype means he owns the design, unless you have it specifically in the contract with the engineer, etc, that the design rights etc is transferred to you. Same as with paying photographers to take your portrate, they own the rights to the picture. There has. Ern exploitative engineers that will be paid to implement an invention and claim rights to.tje design telling you that if you even open it up they can sue you, expecting more money from you for the rights, having not disclosed this before they did the job. So you could be $20k-$50k or more on the hole to the engineer to do the design before you find out you don't own it and have to pay more. So be careful.

Wooohooo!! did not know that- are you sure?

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

Originally Posted by AndreeMarkefors View Post
The concept of not needing to produce a working prototype of the invention is incredibly retarded in my mind.



I don't think that was personal I think he means the fact that the government does not require a working prototype.

Invention requires two things: conception and reduction to practice. There are two types of reduction to practice as far as the USPTO is concerned: conceptual reduction to practice (could a working protoype be constructed based on the info in the patent application) and actual reduction to practice (ie a working prototype). The "working prototype" falls under the reduction to practice category. There is no requirement for a working prototype and that there be actual reduction to practice, and what type of reduction to practice is appropriate depends on the technology. Invention these days is often the combination or modification of prior art. If the combination or modification ends with a device that would expected to operate in a predictable way, then no prototype would be necessary.

For example, for the sake of argument, say the invention is a spork. A combination of a fork and a spoon. It's very clear to anyone that has ever used both a fork and a spoon that the two could be combined and retain function as both a fork and a spoon in a single device with expected results - a spork. In this instance, a working prototype would not be necessary, and conceptual reduction to practice prevails because anyone would expect the spork to function for its intended purpose without a prototype. If the invention is a perpetual motion machine, or a DeLorean retrofitted with a flux capacitor for the purpose of traveling back to 1955, then the USPTO is going to want to see a working prototype and you are going to have demonstrate actual reduction to practice...which isn't an unreasonable request IMHO because the USPTO is going to assert that the patent application is not enabling without it and therefore the technology is not patentable.

BTW if you show a patent examiner a working model of your invention, you have to keep track of that exact model for the pendency of the patent. If you lose the model, your patent could be held invalid. Demonstrating a working prototype to the USPTO is a last-ditch effort that is only done when absolutely necessary (like if you've got a demonstrably working perpetual motion machine or time machine).