Getting a patent?

[Todd C. Deveau]

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

As I mentioned previously, if the hypothetical engineer contributes ideas that lead to the final product, the engineer wouldn't necessary own the invention, but at the very least would be considered a co-inventor and entitled to rights as far as at least the USPTO is concerned. This is where you want to be careful and where you may want to consider a contract before exchanging ideas. Full disclosure, I'm not an attorney, and this an area where you should consult an attorney first.

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

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


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

Hopefully I'm helpful to some degree. Sorry you've been given poor advice in the past. FWIW I work for a law firm and not an invention help company....the types of companies that Jacek referred to earlier that provide 1 year of "protection" sound like they merely help file a provisional patent application, which grants no rights for protection and just gets the concept on file at the USPTO in order to establish a filing or priority date for a later patent application. Maybe I should put it in my signature but I don't visit reduser often anymore and just popped in to see some Gemini footage. I saw the patent thread and thought I'd chime in.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

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

We had guys caught out years ago. The Las .ight have changed, but it is based on contractor law of the artisan, between equals. Employment law is based on slavery law, like the boss used to have say over your time 24 hours a day, so what you invented in your own time related to your work they could have rights towards, and you couldn't have a second job, sort of stuff. Really unfair, unjust, and applied to a completely different system in modern times.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

As I mentioned previously, if the hypothetical engineer contributes ideas that lead to the final product, the engineer wouldn't necessary own the invention, but at the very least would be considered a co-inventor and entitled to rights as far as at least the USPTO is concerned. This is where you want to be careful and where you may want to consider a contract before exchanging ideas. Full disclosure, I'm not an attorney, and this an area where you should consult an attorney first.

Where as what I was covering was only the working design aspect of getting prototypes or implementations of it Jacek. As I said my memory is sketchy and worth getting others input.

 

[H Dewey]

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.

After reading from the POV you suggested, I think you are right. Post removed.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Going on what Eric said. I do know they widened what was regarded as public domain sources, in regard as research to invalidate patents. Before it used to be restrictive, but worth looking up what it is now.

There is an etching about NDA or other, that helps get an initial injunction a lot cheaper, but I forget.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I've known of companies that will black box invent something without outside reference. I know of patents granted that violate prior art, but are too expensive to get overturned.

I am wondering what happens in cases where patents are file and granted without reference to prior art, or prior art searches? Is this something these companies are doing?

 

[Eric Lange]

Hopefully I'm helpful to some degree. Sorry you've been given poor advice in the past. FWIW I work for a law firm and not an invention help company....the types of companies that Jacek referred to earlier that provide 1 year of "protection" sound like they merely help file a provisional patent application, which grants no rights for protection and just gets the concept on file at the USPTO in order to establish a filing or priority date for a later patent application. Maybe I should put it in my signature but I don't visit reduser often anymore and just popped in to see some Gemini footage. I saw the patent thread and thought I'd chime in.

No worries I totally get or got where you are at (kind of thing) know you sound 100% legit and professional all they way.

Sorry if I came off as putting you into that "Other" frame. But I am pleased that you made it more clear to other folks here (as that's very good of course).

Gemini IS very very special...

____________________________________________________________________________________________

It's no big deal about the advise I got ( I set things straight one way or another eventually as best as I could in terms of course corrections go) ... They were a fairly reputable firm (in the U.K.)... My best experiences were with Nakamura and associates in Japan and handled everything myself and that was the BEST "patent" related experience of my life; just weird I had a strong instinct to not let anyone else mess with that. Was a good instinct as it turned out .

Here's the thing... Ultimately I am responsible for what I do/transact... I'm the one that carry's the proverbial can.

 

[Eric Lange]

After reading from the POV you suggested, I think you are right. Post removed.

No worries either, its a "Forum" and it IS difficult without face to face communication / sense of "tone" (facial expression and body language) , but the original context was indeed quite cynical and flippant ... (but respectful of hard work ( I like more complex messages and more original mixed approaches and attitudes)) ; stimulates discussion too... Hey it's the internet... RED forum fares better than most places that end up as a total ball breaking mosh pit hell bent on a downward spiral to the lowest possible nasty level of a troll-tastic sees pool from hell that Dante could never have imagined. so Yay REDUSER and "Red_family" are good folks...

It will be fun to see what kind of mayhem may or may not be permitted on HYDROGEN network.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Hmm. You know Christopher. The other day I came up with a new ........ cover design. Real improvement, easily marketable on shopping channels by the millions. But it's still a lot of money, as it can be sold to some extent in every country deserving of a patent in most of them.

Maybe small counties should align themselves to the patent system of Australia (sorry America) instead of having their own, to stream line the system.

But going a step forwards, countries only need to pass in law protection of Australian Patents in their country to do this. A step further is laws in every country to protect any other countries legitimate non conflicting patent in that country, to establish an international patent by default by publishing it in any country.

 

[Eric Lange]

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).

^^^ This is beautiful and very lucid.

Like.

It's funny you should mention that I still keep the original computer and code and everything related to what I did "Moth balled" just in case... even though we have many version of our tech since then it doesn't deviate from what was originally filed. But weird that I instinctively "preserved " all of that and all my working notes etc etc. Historic proof or something that might end up in a company archive one day.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* I did know this one guy (at my son's school) years ago that did keep making filings with USPTO for some kind of weird electrical zero point energy perpetual motion type machine... The thing that was really disturbing is that he really believed in what he was doing and had spent serious $ (to the dismay of his family) but I can't even imagine what the patent examiners are advised to deal with such things. The USPTO is very taxed / maxed out as it is, you hear stories of where patent examiners just hide stacks of documents in the acoustic tile ceiling in their office. The patent examiner's version of throwing "It" (the paper round) over the wall.

________________________________________________________________________

Then there are the sausage machine "constructs" as well as how best to bust 103 style objections (in the USA) in terms of combinations of prior art and whether such combinations are "Obvious" or whether the combination is taught in the other applications cited by the examiner...

Also for obvious reasons worth really doing homework on the academic literature as well... (assuming that is potentially within scope).

 

[Wayne Morellini]

.. RED forum fares better than most places that end up as a total ball breaking mosh pit hell bent on a downward spiral to the lowest possible nasty level of a troll-tastic sees pool from hell that Dante could never have imagined. so Yay REDUSER and "Red_family" are good folks...

Including all the people I ask to leave me alone, and to stop stalking me, that have pea rattlers in they're brains whistling a lot of noise, not really getting much?

 

[Eric Lange]

Hmm. You know Christopher. The other day I came up with a new ........ cover design. Real improvement, easily marketable on shopping channels by the millions. But it's still a lot of money, as it can be sold to some extent in every country deserving of a patent in most of them.

Maybe small counties should align themselves to the patent system of Australia (sorry America) instead of having their own, to stream line the system.

But going a step forwards, countries only need to pass in law protection of Australian Patents in their country to do this. A step further is laws in every country to protect any other countries legitimate non conflicting patent in that country, to establish an international patent by default by publishing it in any country.

I have to admit I had good experiences with the Australian Patent office... They seem to have their heads screwed on pretty straight IMO.

@Wayne that's a good idea.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Or sue them. Zero point energy is a validated scientific point compared to free energy.

As I understand the patent Office r is under instructions to deny free energy, perpetual motion and antigravity inventions outright. Any possible military weapons application goes to a specisl pool out of site, and you.grt restricted to companies for that. A famous case was Metal Storm, who I think one my teachers used to be on the executive of a previous related entity as an ex colonel (when they were doing the anti missile ship gun system, I think). The patent Office failed to classify it as military use, so they setup their own business without the extra restriction.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Don't worry Eric, some shenanigans happen here too. Occasionally somebody will get through an obviously wrong patent as a joke. Did somebody patent taking out a patent somewhere?

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

^^^ This is beautiful and very lucid.

Like.

It's funny you should mention that I still keep the original computer and code and everything related to what I did "Moth balled" just in case... even though we have many version of our tech since then it doesn't deviate from what was originally filed. But weird that I instinctively "preserved " all of that and all my working notes etc etc. Historic proof or something that might end up in a company archive one day.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* I did know this one guy (at my son's school) years ago that did keep making filings with USPTO for some kind of weird electrical zero point energy perpetual motion type machine... The thing that was really disturbing is that he really believed in what he was doing and had spent serious $ (to the dismay of his family) but I can't even imagine what the patent examiners are advised to deal with such things. The USPTO is very taxed / maxed out as it is, you hear stories of where patent examiners just hide stacks of documents in the acoustic tile ceiling in their office. The patent examiner's version of throwing "It" (the paper round) over the wall.

________________________________________________________________________

Then there are the sausage machine "constructs" as well as how best to bust 103 style objections (in the USA) in terms of combinations of prior art and whether such combinations are "Obvious" or whether the combination is taught in the other applications cited by the examiner...

Also for obvious reasons worth really doing homework on the academic literature as well... (assuming that is potentially within scope).

103 rejections are currently the bane of my existence. I'm constantly having to appeal rejections under 103 because the examiners clearly pick and choose from the prior art using keyword searches and clear hindsight (which is impermissible), adopt a broader-than-reasonable interpretation of the prior art, try to use their own common knowledge based on hindsight instead of cite facts or what is actually taught in the references they rely upon for the rejection, blatantly mischaracterize the prior art references, combine references that have no business being combined while ignoring my arguments that combing would lead to an inoperable product, etc etc etc. There's poor oversight and poor training of examiners, and examiners often stick to garbage rejections to churn cases and get their count (they're evaluated on an odd count system that heavily disfavors the inventors). It's not terribly fun explaining to foreign inventors or foreign associates let alone alone US-based inventors and practitioners that BS 103 rejections are being maintained unreasonably in view of what-should-be-slam-dunk arguments and evidence provided against them, and we'll have to appeal because it's not worth amending the claims further or doing a request for continued examination. I recently had to appeal a case, for example, where the inventor told me he couldn't provide any useful feedback regarding the office action because the rejections were so nonsensical to one of skill in the art (stem cell transplantation, which was also the subject of my doctoral thesis). 103 rejections currently make my job much harder than it should be and I lose more sleep over 103 rejections than I should. I've been told it's an occupational hazard and I need to develop a thicker skin....

 

[Todd C. Deveau]

Don't worry Eric, some shenanigans happen here too. Occasionally somebody will get through an obviously wrong patent as a joke. Did somebody patent taking out a patent somewhere?

It's sad but true. I wish I could cite examples, but there are definitely at least a few instances where US Patent Attorneys have filed for and been granted nonsense patents simply to demonstrate issues with US system

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Todd, I like your sensible talk. Rare here.

That reward system for producing bad reviews. Seems to be a very good basis for a industry wide class action against the government and individual examiners. As the basis should be their numbers and bonuses should be reduced for each (finally upheld) series of reexaminations or objections. Which would make them more responsibly produce good examinations and not neglect. Normally, wouldn't those things be the basis of court cases elsewhere? But in one of the most economically crucial places, they treat this as acceptable etc practice. Patents are one of the only big ways (apart from morality) to advance a country and the economy, technology and society, above another or get left behind. We see this all the time in countries too immoral to propperly respect property rights, let alone intellectual property rights. Their inventors' "ideas" are not respected, so they get less and less smaller economies and power and advancements of society.

Now, talking about antigravity. What a huge economic advantage it is to reduce friction and transportation. Think about it, I did a long time ago. We know that something like that could be done one day, but what is the single, apart from dubious, use of a rule that rejects patents into it. We should be hundreds of years ahead in the last century than what we had been because of the misuse of patents to put a brake on technological advancements. Yes, patents allowed us to move rapidly, but the brakes stopped it from being any further. Now, an eventual development ant-gravity would have the way the economic expansion of hundreds to thousands and to millions of times as further advancement takes it's usefulness further out to space. Now, this is all figurative example. It however means that the richest person in the world coming up, maybe a hundred times less rich then he could get, due to the brakes on intellectual property development protection and exploitation. The government should be supporting intellectual property for free hand over fist for free, as the present system hurts industry, and it's potential to expand. So, all this unevenness in intellectual property hurts the country. The above example is only one way it could, and an extreme example at that. I could scientifically argue about zero point energy too.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

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.

Wayne, you should probably have said "I think that is a bit of a fantasy" and "I think you mistake idea for mere notion". Because the way you wrote it in the quote makes you wrong on both accounts.

I can agree that good ideas are the root of value. But they are not the value. At any given moment there are 1000s of individuals with similar ideas of new inventions to solve similar problems. Just raising your hand and saying "I see a problem/opportunity here that could be solved in [insert patent statement] fashion" isn't enough. Ideas like this are a dime a dozen. At this very moment people all around us are imagining everything from new and improved cheese graters to how aviation could be improved by using trajectories that takes us into space. But it's all for nothing, unless you have a proper implementation that you can show on request.

@Eric Lange: knives are sharp: be careful not to cut yourself. Ice is slippery: be careful not to fall. The correct temperature of coffee is very close to water's boiling temperature: please take care not to burn yourself. And human beings simply cannot fly unassisted—regardless of the color of your leotard.

When you have an accident the correct response is making a mental note: "the next time I'll be more careful". It's not "let's hire a lawyer and sue someone else".

I'm not trying to argue how the world works, because it seems obvious that it doesn't.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Now, talking about antigravity. What a huge economic adavatge it is to reduce friction and transportation. Think about it, I did a long time ago.

This is a great example Wayne! It's a great idea that seems to be worth a lot of money. A great "root". Has it produced value yet? Is it up and running?

As soon as you have your anti gravity gun/transport belt/whatever up and running—let me know. I'll be the first to raise a toast!