Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[touchbase]

Hello,

Note: I am new to inventing and I am just starting out here in this forum so I apologize in advance for the rookie questions.

I read recently that Improvement patents can add something to an existing product,  or find a new use for an existing product.

Q1. Suppose that invention X was to use a wall clock and would ultimately add something to this existing (wall clock) product as well as establish "a new use" for this existing (wall clock) product, what direction or next step should this idea move in?

Q2. Are all wall clocks patented?

Q3. What constitutes "New Use"

 
Thank you for your time and consideration.

tb

[JustAnotherExaminer]

Q1. So you've got a wall clock X.  And you add feature Y.

You can claim X+Y as your invention.  X's are known within the prior art.  Are Y's known by themselves or coupled to any other devices within the art?  If yes, would it be obvious to combine Y to X?

What's obvious?  Well...  Would it be possible and result in a predictable outcome?  Are there any unforseen design obstacles that needed to be overcome that are not known to combining a feature similar to Y to any other device?

Q2. Yes.  All of class 368: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc368/sched368.htm#C368.  Subclass 276 if you're talking about how it mounts.

Q3. For "new use" see MPEP 2112.02.  In general, new uses are not patentable if they're a causal effect.

[Yak]

What's obvious?  Well...  Would it be possible and result in a predictable outcome?  Are there any unforseen design obstacles that needed to be overcome that are not known to combining a feature similar to Y to any other device?

I have a fundamental misunderstanding and possibly disagreement with the plain and generic description of non-obvious as 'is it possible and results in a predicable outcome?'.  Using this concept as a basis for arguing an invention is obvious seems to me to immediately place an assumption of obviousness on every innovation.  It would take an inventor falling off the toilet and having a vision of the flux capacitor and then building a time machine out of a DeLorean to overcome possible and predictable.

[JustAnotherExaminer]

It was embedded in the "Are Y's known.." if statement.

[touchbase]

Q1. So you've got a wall clock X.  And you add feature Y.

You can claim X+Y as your invention.  X's are known within the prior art.  Are Y's known by themselves or coupled to any other devices within the art?  If yes, would it be obvious to combine Y to X?

What's obvious?  Well...  Would it be possible and result in a predictable outcome?  Are there any unforseen design obstacles that needed to be overcome that are not known to combining a feature similar to Y to any other device?

Q2. Yes.  All of class 368: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc368/sched368.htm#C368.  Subclass 276 if you're talking about how it mounts.

Q3. For "new use" see MPEP 2112.02.  In general, new uses are not patentable if they're a causal effect.

Thank you for your response, I appreciate it.

To answer your questions below:

>>>You can claim X+Y as your invention.  Great

>>>Are Y's known by themselves or coupled to any other devices within the art?   Yes, Y's will be affixed or coupled to the wall clock itself and internal devices of the clock as well. No, it would not be obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the area of improvement to combine Y with X.

>>>Are there any unforseen design obstacles that needed to be overcome that are not known to combining a feature similar to Y to any other device?  I am not exactly sure what is being asked in
this question, can you please ask the question again a little differently, thank you.

Note:

The original functionality of the wall clock keeping time will not be altered in any way. There will be additional functionality and design added to the wall clock only.