The Patent Application Process - UK

[triplock]

Raj,

Thank you for your continue alternative view point.

Firstly, just to be clear, you cannot patent methods, theory or principles. You can only patent technically detailed mechanical arrangements and embodiments thereof that are covered in the claims.

Your ad hoc approach to filing, amending filing, claiming priory, amending filing, claiming priory is incorrect. The reason you don't realise it falls foul of the patent procedure is because your application has not yet been subject to procedural scrutiny. Once you pay the application fee, and your paper trail is examined, it will unravel.

Moreover, this bit is aimed at Fletcher. You claim that by open sourcing in the manner you do will prevent others from filing something similar. It won't. The only bit that is new in your concept is the attachment of the laterally sliding weight, interconnected to a rack and pinion, interconnected to a flail, and sited on a Roberval balance.

Clearly this does not prevent others from adapting your design. If they are fortunate to get a device working as a result of just altering one aspect, you will have no recourse as you have not legally defined your IP within the four corners of a set of claims.

You would throw your arms up in the air and claim prior art.

At a tribunal, you would present your IP and the patent holder would present his with his working device. They would rule against you because, by definition, yours is incapable of industrial application, and the patent holder has indeed made a novel step, in so much as he got it to work by adapting your theory.

The extreme example I give to make the point is this. You could say you have invented a rocket to go to the moon. That does not prevent others from translating that proposal into an actual working device and claiming the IP rights.

If you wish to give your device away for the betterment of mankind, patent first else you'll be swept to one side, guaranteed.

Chris

[triplock]

CLAIMS:

Now I want us to look at the all important claims section of a patent application.

From the IPO Website; READ !!

(REV DEC07) Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office

Patent Factsheets: Claims

The basis of a UK patent application is a legal document called a specification. Its contents determine whether a patent can be granted. You would be well advised to seek professional assistance when preparing your patent application. A patent specification includes:
· a full description of your invention, plus any drawings referred to
· one or more claims.


The Intellectual Property Office will conduct a search on your application based upon the invention defined in your claims. If your claims aren’t well written or thought out, the results of our search may not be as helpful as they could be. Your application cannot be ‘searched’ if it has no claims.
Drafting commercially successful claims is not easy. If you are in any doubt about the effectiveness of your claims, consult a patent attorney.

At the substantive examination stage the claims will be assessed to determine whether the invention is new and inventive. If necessary, you will then be given the opportunity to amend your claims.

Style and presentation

Type (or print) the claim(s) on one side only of separate sheets of white A4 paper.
Begin your claims on a separate sheet of paper, preferably headed “CLAIMS�. If you decide to write more than one claim, number them in order beginning with claim 1.
Number the pages of claims in order, to follow on from the pages of the description (for example, if your last descriptive page is numbered 2, your first claim page will be numbered 3).



IMPORTANT: You will need to file your claims at the Intellectual Property Office within 12 months of your filing date (where no claim to priority is made).

A claim is a precise statement of the invention that you want to protect.

Your first claim must define the invention by setting out its distinctive technical features. These are the features which distinguish your invention from what is already known within the same or similar field.

Your first claim should only include the essential features of your invention and you should avoid using terms that are too restrictive in meaning. For example, if the invention which you have described uses a hook on which to hang coats, you should not necessarily call it a hook in your claim. Instead, consider whether you should call it simply “a support for clothes�.

Subsidiary features may be set out in “dependent claims�: these refer to one or more previous claims.

A claim should not contain any statements relating to commercial or other advantages or other non-technical aspects; e.g. claims of the type “I claim that my invention is novel� or “I claim £250 for my clothes stand� or “I claim to be the inventor of this clothes stand� or “I claim that my clothes stand will make it easier to get access to the clothes� will not be accepted.

Do not use a full stop in the middle of any claim as this would make it unclear.

Do not put anything in your claims which you have not already referred to in your description. The claims must be fully supported by the description.

[raj]

Chris,
you are RIGHT!

I am WRONG!

YOU WIN the debate.

Congratulation AGAIN.

Kind regards.

Raj

[triplock]

Raj
It's not about who's right and who's wrong. I just don't want people to fall foul of the system by not adhering to protocol.

Ultimately, I want people to earn money out of their IP. Capitalism and opportunism is good in my book

Chris

[triplock]

@All

Below are the claims I wrote in relation to the attached Picture. I'll comment about their structure in due course:

Title:- ‘Automatically Adjusting Gravity-Equilibrator’
Application Number: GB1312408.6
Re: Revised Claims

Claims

1. An automatically adjusting spring to mass, gravity equalised support arm, the support arm comprising: a balance arm; and a vertically moveable load bearing portion located at a distal end of the balance arm, the vertical movement of which is controlled by two supporting elements, whereby the energy required to carry out any adjustment of the support arm is derived from the weight of the mass being supported.

2. An automatically-adjusting spring to mass, gravity equalised support arm according to claim 1, wherein the supporting elements are non-rigid.


3. An automatically adjusting spring to mass, gravity equalised support arm according to either of claims 1 and 2, wherein the support elements comprise a first standard spring , the second spring exhibiting zero-free length behaviour irrespective of load within a predetermined weight range.

4. An automatically-adjusting spring to mass, gravity equalised support arm according to claim 1 where the standard spring and zero-free length spring, or equivalent, are both located at the non-fixed end of the balance arm so as to adjust the length and / or attachment points of both in unison.


5. An automatically adjusting spring to mass, gravity equalised support arm according to claims 1-4, whereby all supporting and adjusting elements are so arranged as to provide static equilibrium of the support arm at any position within the range of movement of the support arm.

[triplock]

From claim one, this is the essence of what is being protected within this granted patent:

whereby the energy required to carry out any adjustment of the support arm is derived from the weight of the mass being supported.

With that simple piece of wording I have shut to door to a whole sector of 'energy free' adjustment of a gravity equalised structure to compensate for a change in payload for 20 years.

Comments for or against ?

Chris

[Dunesbury]

Comments for or against what? The wording?

[triplock]

Dunesbury

Yes.

For others who have patented, I'm interested in their wording of the claims to see if I'm going about it the right way (in terms of overall form, grammar and syntax )

Chris

[Dunesbury]

It sounds like good wording.
If this is granted patent, would you have to re-file to change wording if you worry door is still open to energy free adjustment of a gravity equalised structure to compensate for a change in payload ?

[triplock]

Dunesbury

This patent was granted, so, as such, all wording is fixed now. Prior to publication you could submit a re-fixed set of claims, subject to certain criteria. I suspect though that you would need a new search carried out as a consequence. You may even have to re-file the whole application.

The claims have to relate back to only what is defined in the technical description. You do attempt to cover every permutation, but nothing is ever 100% water tight.

You are protected against 'obvious' improvement steps, but beyond that its open season to the next row of innovative people to try to jump over or go around existing patents. Its the examiners judgement call as to what is prior art ultimately.

I am now just putting together my 7th patent application so am taking a wide view.

Although they are individual devices within their own rights, you need to reduce the likelihood of someone circumvented you IP as much as possible (as you want to licence or sell your IP yourself ultimately). Its all about the money. No more. No less.

So if you come across a rich seam of ore in the cliff face of Classic Mechanics, excavate it out as quickly as possible because there's always a group of miners just over the hill !



Chris

[John Collins]

On the other hand, you amateur would-be patentees should keep in mind that your patent protection is limited to the extent that you're willing to enforce it. Unfortunately, there are no "patent police" out there, ensuring that your idea won't get stolen. If someone infringes on your patent, you'll need to spend even more time and money on legal fees to rectify the situation. In addition, patent claims are very specific--meaning it's typically not very difficult to legally design a similar product. That's why you see so many great new products--even those produced by large corporations with equally large pockets--knocked off and released by competitors.

Just my opinion as an advocate of "give it away".

JC

[triplock]

John

You are correct of course with what you say. If someone manufactures an item which is detailed with your patent you have to take enforcement action.

Bar that, the only 'protection' the IPO offers is at the search stage when they may reject a fresh application as it is similar to prior art.

Ultimately, as a rule of thumb, the man with the most money wins as the stakes can be raised so high that you're knocked out of the game.

The only counter to this is to join the opposition by selling or licencing your IP to them, so it isn't all bad news tbh. Don't fight a crusade, just make an arrangement.

Chris

[John Collins]

Fair point Chris.

JC

[Fletcher]

Moreover, this bit is aimed at Fletcher.

You claim that by open sourcing in the manner you do will prevent others from filing something similar. It won't. I didn't say that at all Chris - I fully expect others to find other mechanical work-arounds.

The only bit that is new in your concept is the attachment of the laterally sliding weight, interconnected to a rack and pinion, interconnected to a flail, and sited on a Roberval balance. That is correct Chris - I gave two alternatives for that basic pinion arrangement - the combination just happens to be IMO the easiest & most logical form of mechanical arrangement & devices that would use the principle I postulate that causes a wheel, once started rotating, to remain out of equilibrium & never reach equilibrium (i.e. does not lose Potential Energy as CG moves laterally), if multiple overlapping mechanisms are used.

Clearly this does not prevent others from adapting your design. If they are fortunate to get a device working as a result of just altering one aspect, you will have no recourse as you have not legally defined your IP within the four corners of a set of claims. Of course others will look for a work-around, if they wish to patent their adaptation - this presumes they can find a more simple logical way that is cost efficient to do the same thing as my ideas propose - good luck to them.

I am not looking for recourse, as has been said many times - if the ideas proposed & recorded in my thread ultimately prove that a wheel can never find equilibrium once started then I have forfilled my objectives.

Chris

I agree with JC's comments - you will fight in court a very long & expensive battle - overseas company's may or may not partner with you for a small royalty fee - some are just predatory by nature - else after 20 years your IP is no longer valid - that's the patenting system for you.

There are multiple threads on patenting on this forum - I really don't want to add anything to them.

Besides, the power output (low power density) is so low from an imbalance driven wheel that it is highly unlikely to be worth more than novelty value (also multiple threads about that).

It's real value is the scramble the scientific community would be in attempting to explain a scientifically impossible machine that would appear to prove gravity was not conservative & that the gravity field could be induced to give up energy, perhaps.

Just My Opinions.

[triplock]

Fletcher
Firstly, thank you for dropping into this thread as your input is appreciate .

The reason I started this post was to go into the actual nuts and bolts of the Patent process as I don't think that it's been gone into like this before. As you can see it isn't about the morality of it rather the procedure and make up of it.

Also, if someone wants to donate their concept to the betterment of others then that is their prerogative. Even if that is the case a patent can still be useful as you can determine the make up of the donation .

Admittedly the idea of coming up with ideas that tip the scientific table over is attractive . We all want our place in history irrespective of any financial reward.

At present I'm trying to achieve that away from the field of PM research as the results are more within reach. Also my push to get a return on the IP I have invested a lot of time in coming up with is borne out of necessity rather than greed. I simply cannot continue digging ditches at the age of 46. My only other asset is my imagination because if I don't produce a return by the time I retire , it's the soup kitchen for me.

So if you wanted an insite into my motivation, that is it !

Chris