Can an idea to improve a product be patented? With out proof that it can be done? (I’m almost certain it can be done).
My idea is to improve an every day product, manufactured by many companies in many forms. It would likely need to be looked at by materials specialists and chemists.
I’m not talking about perpetual motion machines, or things that would be dismissed out of hand because of our knowledge of the way the world works.
I have been poking around the Patent Office Web site, but have not come up with the answer yet.
It’s a simple idea like sticky notes or liquid paper. But may not have been thought of.
I’ll dig back into the Patent office web site, but for now, the simple question is - Can an idea to improve a common every day product be patented? With out proof that it can be done?
[sub]I’m sure we have a number of patent holders on the SDMB. Anecdotes of the process would be welcome. The idea hit me today like a hammer to the back of the head.[/sub]
Depends on what you are doing, but it may be possible. The company I work for has a patent on a PID algorithm used in an industrial controller, which is just an improvement to PID algorithms which have been around for ages.
A patent for an individual person is almost worthless. First of all, it costs a lot of money. Second, once you spend all of that money, you have bought something that gives you no protection at all. When someone does infringe on your patent, you have to spend even more money to sue them. Then the battles of the lawyers begins, and those guys charge by the hour. The only way you win is after spending gobs and gobs and gobs of money, your lawyer manages to defeat their lawyer (or lawyers).
Big companies know that individuals don’t have a lot of money, so they will sometimes adopt the strategy of lawyering you to death. They will hit you with all kinds of frivolous lawsuits claiming that your patent is really an infringement on an older patent (even if it isn’t) and all other kinds of BS that is basically intended to make you give up. Then, once you do give up, they will make millions off of your idea while you end up poor and homeless. Ok, I’m exaggerating a bit, but not much.
Yes, you can file a patent on the improvement. However, you may or may not be able to show that it is novel and nonobvious. Remember that just because something is not on the market (or not patented) doesn’t mean that no one’s ever thought of it.
In theory you are supposed to only patent things that exist. That means you have to have made the machine, implemented the algorithm, done a process etc. etc. It’s not supposed to be granted on a design or an idea. However, the reality of the situation is otherwise. You do not need to demonstrate or show the patent office anything. It’s all based on the design documents you submit. Practically speaking, there’s nothing stopping you, or anyone, from patenting something without ever having built it.
As alluded to by engineer_comp_geek, the patent system in the U.S. is an absolute joke. If you give us a few more details we could give you some advice on whether or not it’s worth patenting.
Thanks for the response engineer_comp_geek and . I’m still looking at the USPTO for fees required to even apply for a patent. Not getting very far. Though, I have to admit I’ve just been looking for a little bit, and just tonight.
Not sure if it’s $50 or $5000 to submit an application.
I did a little searching on the USPTO site, and don’t see the idea I have.
RE: Lawyers and such. Well, it’s not something I would intend to fight. I don’t have deep enough pockets for that. Bend over and sell.
I do think, that if the idea is patentable, it would be kind of cool to have a patent on something that actually makes a lot of sense. I’m kind of stunned that this is not already done.
I’m sorry to be so elusive. My idea would involve a chemical that changes color when exposed to air (N, O[sup]2[/sup], CO[sup]2[/sup], H[sup]2[/sup]O,Argon, whatever). It’s an idea. And I’m not a chemist.
I suspect that such a chemical exists that could be incorporated into the product.
This is completely false. The only requirement along these lines to get a patent is that you can enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The USPTO is allowed to request a working model (office policy says that they only do this if you claim a perpetual motion machine), but you don’t have to build it before you file, or even before they request it.
Please do not tell us all about your invention if you want to maintain patentability. You will lose the right to file in most other countries, and could also possibly damage your US rights. Contact a patent attorney. (I can’t represent you due to contractual commitments, but IM me if you want me to try to chase down a recommendation for you.)
ETA: It appears that point #2 was a little too late.
The basic filing fee to file a US patent is $515 for a small entity such as yourself.
There are strips of material placed in cell phones that changes color when exposed to water. This way the repair shop can tell if you dunked your phone or not (often important for determining abuse in warranty replacements).
It’s worth expanding on the point that patented inventions don’t have to work. The USPTO pulled the rug from under obvious perpetual motion machines simply to stop being deluged with such trivial crap, but there are still perpetual motion machines being patented (anything “over unity” qualifies) and there is a whole universe of other crap and nonsense some con artists patented so as to better fleece the pigeons.
You might want to take a look at this thread from 2006, enipla.
I would strongly recommend that you read Don Lancaster’s “The Case Against Patents” (warning: 70kB PDF). He’s a bit hyperbolic, but the two-page article contains a lot of truth. More of Lancaster’s patent articles are here.
I have heard good things about the book Patent It Yourself, although I have not read it. But applying for a patent is complicated and fraught with places to screw yourself permanently. An attorney will typically charge about $10k to write and file a simple application these days (and this one sounds pretty simple).
Oh, and Derleth, patented inventions do have to work, at least to be enforceable. The USPTO can’t check everything, but you can bet that you’ll have to show it in court if you ever try to assert the patent.
The fees to file patents for individuals are for the most part a negligible part of the cost of obtaining a patent. I believe that they just lowered the cost of filing for individuals.
To get a patent written by someone who knows the law is around $10,000. And that is the bulk rate a company gets with a firm they give a lot of business to.
It is cool to have a patent (I have four) but not $10K cool. Have your read some patents in depth? Reading what our patent attorneys did to my ideas makes me never want to even think about writing one myself. I understand somewhat why they are written the way they are, but I’m glad my company was paying someone else to do it.
Do those who know have opnions about the recent SC opinion?
Which one? The Supreme Court took an unprecedented four patent cases last term.
KSR was probably the biggest one, (partially) tossing out the old Federal Circuit standard for nonobviousness. In theory, it’s a good idea, but in practice, it makes it too easy for patent examiners to reject on spurious grounds. We’ll have to see how it shakes out after a few years.
The new rules going into effect on Nov. 1 are a bigger deal, really. (If they go into effect - GlaxoSmithKlein has filed a lawsuit trying to stop them.) I can’t find anyone who likes them except the USPTO Solicitor’s Office - even the examiners are grumbling, and you can expect most patent attorneys you see for the next six months to be half bald from pulling their hair out.
That’s the one I meant. I’ve reviewed some patents for my company, as a technical expert, and while I can’t define obviousness I found lots of prior art. Still, a lot of companies in the tech industry are really happy about the ruling.
My opinions about the quality of patents these days is a rant for another day.
Bringing back some not so fond memories of time spent working for the Patent and Trademark Office in the Herbert Hoover Building (corner of Pennsylvania and Constitution).
The rats in the basement the size of good size dogs.
Elevators that still had elevator operators.
Clerks coming back from lunch drunk.
The commute from Fredericksburg.
The best part of the job was being around the corner from the Smithsonian.