Any suggestions as to how to patent an 'idea'?

[Govind]

In the last few years at least twice I thought of some idea and did not bother to expand and patent Those ideas thought in parallel by some one has turned out into market as a product!
I am sure, Iam not alone. Many of us have had this experience.

I decided to get serious and learn more about this. Thought, Why not post in our Cove so that replies could be useful to many others.

Questions:
Have you ever patented an “idea”?
What are the criteria for patent able “ideas”?
Can anyone explain the process?

Thanks,
Govind.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Govind

In the last few years at least twice I thought of some idea and did not bother to expand and patent Those ideas thought in parallel by some one has turned out into market as a product!
I am sure, Iam not alone. Many of us have had this experience.

I decided to get serious and learn more about this. Thought, Why not post in our Cove so that replies could be useful to many others.

Questions:
Have you ever patented an “idea”?
What are the criteria for patent able “ideas”?
Can anyone explain the process?

Thanks,
Govind.

Before dropping any "pearls of wisdom" - realize a good start is to Google "patent an idea" and choose from many hits.

I found this easily enough. It seems as straightforward as you'll need today and is much better prose than I have time to craft:

http://invention.articleinsider.com/...t_an_idea.html
Patent An Idea
by Steve Schneider
One frequently asked question people have about intellectual property is whether someone can patent an idea, even if they have not designed or made the invention they have an idea for. To this, question, the frequently given response is "Not exactly." Patent law specifically states that "mere ideas" are not patentable.

How To Patent An Idea
However, neither do they require that you execute your idea to receive a patent. Under U.S. Patent Law, the inventive process consists of two steps:

1. Conception; and
2. Reduction to Practice.

Conception involves the formation of an abstract solution to a problem.
Conception might involve suggestions how to solve a particular problem and preliminary work in that direction.

Reduction to practice is the carrying out of these suggestions and ideas. There are two ways that an invention can be reduced to practice -

1. "actual" and
2. "constructive" reduction to practice.

Actual reduction to practice means there is concrete discernable invention -a device built, a compound synthesized or an object manufactured.

"Constructive" reduction to practice means a complete patent application to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is means that if you have an idea and can create a complete and descriptive process to realize that idea, you can patent an idea.

[Marc]

It appears you can patent just about anything in the US. Can't speak for the rest of the world. I have read about people who literally do just that - Think up things and get patents with the hope that some company will end up using it whether knowledgeable of the patent or by accident (patents searches are not for the faint and heck, let's consider you - Have you done a patent search to make sure no one already holds a patent on your 'idea'?). Remember that patenting something doesn't mean it has to be produced and sold or anything.

I would assume by patenting an 'idea' one would really be patenting a 'concept' or something such.

[Govind]

Thanks for the feedback Marc & Wes.
I already had few web pages found including the one for Canada http://www.wd.gc.ca/tools/inventors/homework_a_e.asp

However, these sites will not provide the details on experiences people went through. I was expecting this kind of experiences from various members. There is a Quality Tool called “TRIZ” which can be very handy to generate ideas. I have classroom knowledge of this tool, but not applied yet. Similarly, I was also taught that people have had success in using “pugh” concept also for generating ideas comparing Competitors.

Iam listening. Anyone with experience in generating ideas and/or processing it and/or patented, are requested to share here. (not your idea , just the process)

Govind.

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by Govind

Thanks for the feedback Marc & Wes.
I already had few web pages found including the one for Canada http://www.wd.gc.ca/tools/inventors/homework_a_e.asp

However, these sites will not provide the details on experiences people went through. I was expecting this kind of experiences from various members. There is a Quality Tool called “TRIZ” which can be very handy to generate ideas. I have classroom knowledge of this tool, but not applied yet. Similarly, I was also taught that people have had success in using “pugh” concept also for generating ideas comparing Competitors.

Iam listening. Anyone with experience in generating ideas and/or processing it and/or patented, are requested to share here. (not your idea , just the process)

Govind.

There are patents for "processes" - add that to your search. You can patent a process which can only be executed in a multi-million or multi-billion USD plant (think chemical refinery) and patent office doesn't require building, only sufficient description.

It occurs to me you might explore the concept of COPYRIGHT rather than patent. If you are careful in your phrasing you will leave room to clobber copycats with plagiarism suits to protect your idea.

Certainly charts and procedures can be copyrighted.

[Jennifer Kirley]

Patents cost a good deal of money in the U.S.--thousands, and it's a slow process.

Copyright registration is a better way of claiming ownership to ideas that can be recorded in some type of communication such as a how-to book, electronic media or tape, pictures etc., even if they are not published.

Copyrighting is faster (about 5 months), and registration to the U.S. Library of Congress is currently $30.

Copyrights must be legally defended if you think there's encroachment, but you have a prayer of defense if your work is registered.

[KMAAA]

Patenting is a big topic..I'll only relate a few thoughts unless you have speciifc questions.

I've collected a number of patents over the years. One was filed in the US only, the others (and subsequent continuations in part) were filed in about all industrialized countries across the world. The world filing fees alone for the last one (just one large patent rather than breaking it up into numerous patents...initially the US patent office examiner suggested 18 separate patents...as the US would require) exceeded $380,000.

The patents I've received are all process, product-by-process, composition of matter, or material applications filings.

"Design" type patents are the easiest to receive from what I've been told. The 'widget' itself isn't necessary as just a drawing will do. Process & composition of matter filings are much tougher to be successful at.

Jennifer is right that the process is slow. The USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office) has a finite number of patent examiners(attorneys) and they use FIFO. The examiners do have a quota of filings they must act on so in some cases they may not research the prior art as effectively as you(your attorney) might. The examiner may also fail to understand the distinction between your claim(s) and those of close prior art. If this happens you'll receive a response declining your application & citing the prior art as the examiner understands it. You'll (your attorney) then have to prepare a response explaining why the examiner objections have no basis. If you survive one or two iteratons on this you may receive a patent. The quickest I've been through this was just over 2 years...though it can take longer. Naturally, all the communication back & forth needs to be in a very formal language (if your serious...USPTO examiners aren't amused by people wasting their time) and the formality requires an attorney and they cost lots of money. Can you do it without an attorney?...undoubtedly...but it won't be fun & you'll need to do your homework...LOTS of it. Having been through it a number fo times...I wouldn't attempt it alone.

Some countries' patent offices are respected across the world while others are not. Japan's isn't..it's a joke. In Europe there are no exceptions for disclosing the invention...you disclose it in a public forum(sell something, talk to someone about it with a non-disclosure agreement in place...) and you are prevented from seeking patent protection. In the US if you disclose it(but not sell it?? hard to remember) you have 1 year to file.

In my experience a patent must not be "obvious" relative to the prior art, it should be "surprising", and it has to be "good for something". Patents based on ideas alone can hold up against a challenge, but patents with plenty of examples demonstrating the novelty of your invention or improvement over the prior art will be much stronger. When must a patent be defendable?...when you can make money off it. If you can, others will try & they can challenge the patent legally. This can be breathtakingly expensive. If I remember right, if the challenger wins the challenge they can make lots of money(assuming the invention is marketable)...if they lose the challenge I believe they pick up the tab for the entire legal proceeding & probably your costs too.

There are defensive patents, offensive patents, patents to obfuscate.................

My last one took a team of 12 people about 18 months to prepare (lots of examples demonstrating the invention, 115 claims total) and required about $600K in research & development charges....all this and the company gave me $1 to sign the rights over to them(part of the employment contract)...oh boy!

[Wes Bucey]

In Reply to Parent Post by KMAAA

Patenting is a big topic..I'll only relate a few thoughts unless you have speciifc questions.

I've collected a number of patents over the years. One was filed in the US only, the others (and subsequent continuations in part) were filed in about all industrialized countries across the world. The world filing fees alone for the last one (just one large patent rather than breaking it up into numerous patents...initially the US patent office examiner suggested 18 separate patents...as the US would require) exceeded $380,000.

The patents I've received are all process, product-by-process, composition of matter, or material applications filings.

"Design" type patents are the easiest to receive from what I've been told. The 'widget' itself isn't necessary as just a drawing will do. Process & composition of matter filings are much tougher to be successful at.

Jennifer is right that the process is slow. The USPTO (US Patent & Trademark Office) has a finite number of patent examiners(attorneys) and they use FIFO. The examiners do have a quota of filings they must act on so in some cases they may not research the prior art as effectively as you(your attorney) might. The examiner may also fail to understand the distinction between your claim(s) and those of close prior art. If this happens you'll receive a response declining your application & citing the prior art as the examiner understands it. You'll (your attorney) then have to prepare a response explaining why the examiner objections have no basis. If you survive one or two iteratons on this you may receive a patent. The quickest I've been through this was just over 2 years...though it can take longer. Naturally, all the communication back & forth needs to be in a very formal language (if your serious...USPTO examiners aren't amused by people wasting their time) and the formality requires an attorney and they cost lots of money. Can you do it without an attorney?...undoubtedly...but it won't be fun & you'll need to do your homework...LOTS of it. Having been through it a number fo times...I wouldn't attempt it alone.

Some countries' patent offices are respected across the world while others are not. Japan's isn't..it's a joke. In Europe there are no exceptions for disclosing the invention...you disclose it in a public forum(sell something, talk to someone about it with a non-disclosure agreement in place...) and you are prevented from seeking patent protection. In the US if you disclose it(but not sell it?? hard to remember) you have 1 year to file.

In my experience a patent must not be "obvious" relative to the prior art, it should be "surprising", and it has to be "good for something". Patents based on ideas alone can hold up against a challenge, but patents with plenty of examples demonstrating the novelty of your invention or improvement over the prior art will be much stronger. When must a patent be defendable?...when you can make money off it. If you can, others will try & they can challenge the patent legally. This can be breathtakingly expensive. If I remember right, if the challenger wins the challenge they can make lots of money(assuming the invention is marketable)...if they lose the challenge I believe they pick up the tab for the entire legal proceeding & probably your costs too.

There are defensive patents, offensive patents, patents to obfuscate.................

My last one took a team of 12 people about 18 months to prepare (lots of examples demonstrating the invention, 115 claims total) and required about $600K in research & development charges....all this and the company gave me $1 to sign the rights over to them(part of the employment contract)...oh boy!

Well . . .
I didn't want to scare Govind with horror stories.

Over the last forty years, I've been associated with various organizations which went through this process - my sources tell me it gets exponentially more expensive every year.

In quiet moments (usually after a big infusion of gin, scotch, or other medication), I've had some "pros" tell me (regarding consumer products and "gizmos") they recommend making a filing (patent pending), then go ahead and build and market the device, on the theory to make as much money as possible before "pirates" come into the marketplace with exact copies or slight variations. The cost of maintaining vigilence against pirates is horrendous and software patent holders will tell you - nearly impossible to collect damages when you do catch a pirate.

In the case of a "process" your organization will use itself - those same sources tell me it is much easier to keep the process a "trade secret" than to go through the cost of patent approval.

Bottom line:
In the long run, you have to make a cold, hard determination of the real market for your "thing" and make a judgment call on the cost of patenting versus the potential return AFTER ALL ANCILLARY COSTS OF DEFENDING AGAINST POTENTIAL PIRATES ARE INCLUDED.

Sometimes you can't sell a better mousetrap.
One of my previous organizations went through a horrendously expensive patent application for a group of devices for containing and retrieving oil spills at sea or on rivers and canals. We made working models (miniature) and demonstrated them in swimming pools and endless lap pools (this was before wave pools.) After 3 years of trying to market, we never sold one full-size assembly. The inventor went into a big depression and just disappeared. It's been 30 years and I've never even seen anything similar, even though our invention worked wonderfully.

Get me a case of single malt scotch and I'll regale you with dozens of tales of "better mousetraps" which never found a market.

LAST CAVEAT:
Do not, under any circumstances, succumb to a pitch from a magazine ad or late night infomercial promising to help you patent and market your invention. If you need to ask why, you need someone to hold your hand when you cross the street.