Print

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

[windseaker]

No, I not looking for easy way out.
Yes , you've heard this before.

I am a cad designer with a client who wants to put several mechanical machines together and patent them.
The machine is like a semi-truck mounted water cannon with a conveyor feeding dirt and a vacuum cleaner?
So, Where do I start?
It seems a lot of work to patent all the way down to the nuts and bolts.
He said that some guy can do it in 5 weeks?
My question is "do what".
Outside of buying the existing patents of each machine (with drawings) and then put them all together (add new drawings), I dont see how to draw it all.
Is there a basic utility patent with fundamental ideas that would merge a flow chart and mechanical drawings? or what would you start with , to give the client the reality of work, time and end produce.

Thank you   

[JimIvey]

Well, you need to draw all the things that need to be described in the patent application.  You'd have to work closely with the person writing the application to determine which details are important and which aren't.  It's all very fact-specific.

Regards.

[windseaker]

Ok, first question.
If he wants it mounted in a semi-truck, I would have to draw the truck in cad. Thats 5 weeks easy and more?
Now draw a water cannon, to do what he wants: m mm , that's pump, hydra, electrical controls, mechanical parts and design. (there is another 5weeks or more)

Im sorry this can not be a 5 week job? maybe 5 months?

I am trying very hard to be honest to the client, but I'm having the problem with estimation of the time needed and scope of detail in the patent drawing. I am also helping with the claims as well.

Advice welcomed

 P.S. I have also heard that drawing do not need to be to scale now?  I find it hard to believe.

[JimIvey]

No, drawings do not need to be to scale, though it's good to point out that they aren't in the specification if it would otherwise be misleading or confusing.

You only need to draw the parts of the components that are necessary to explain the invention.

So, let's take the example of a water canon mounted on a semi-truck's trailer.  Let's assume that the trailer and the water canon are conventional (not new) except in the way the canon is mounted on the trailer. 

Do you need to draw the truck that pulls the trailer?  Probably not.  Sounds like any semi-truck will suffice.

Do you need to draw the trailer?  At least part of it.  You can probably get by with a crummy hand sketch on a napkin (and scanned, of course) of most of the trailer, except for the parts that are new -- e.g., for mounting the water canon.  I often use clip art for this sort of thing -- e.g., a cell phone talking to a computer through a network: I use clip art for the cell phone, the network (usually shown as a cloud), and the computer.

Do you need to draw the water canon?  Same.  At least part of it.  If the water canon is conventional aside from its mount, you can do another crummy napkin drawing and scan it. 

Now, for the mount, you don't need to produce CAD drawings sufficient to have all the parts milled.  All that's needed is to explain, in great detail, how the mount works and how to make one.  There's going to be a written narrative along with the drawings, making the drawings more like illustrations.  Most CAD drawings I've seen are big-time over-kill for patent drawings.  You won't need to show every nut and bolt and specific dimensions and thread spacing.  All of that is what we call "routine engineering" and not needed (often) in a patent specification.

And, referring back to my earlier comment, I would never just describe my idea and ask a CAD engineer to draw me some patent drawings.  As the person writing the application, I would insist on directing the drawing -- specifying exactly what I need to show and from what perspective.  The person writing the application should know what you need to show in your drawings and to what quality they should be.  If you're not that person, you should not produce the drawings without first getting explicit details from that person.

It sounds as if the person who knows how to write the patent application is missing in your scenario.  If the client were a patent practitioner or at least someone with patent writing experience, they wouldn't ask a CAD designer to figure out what drawings would go in a patent.  In nearly all situations, the CAD designer -- if one is needed for a patent application -- is sub-contracted by the patent practitioner.

Lastly, all patents in the US are available for download for free.  The simplest way is to use Google Patents and click the "Save PDF" button (or one like that).  So, you shouldn't have to buy any patents to look at examples.

Regards.

[patentsusa]

I agree with the last post 100%.  A patent attorney or agent should be specifying what is needed for patent drawings.  That person needs to figure out what is going to be claimed in the patent application and then request that you draw those features.  For example, if it is just a matter of combining old components, it is possible that a block diagram would be sufficient unless there is some invention in how the components are being attached.

[PatentDraftsman]

It sounds to me like the inventor has a concept and windseaker will end up being the inventor. Be careful windseaker, a patent draftsman is supposed to fulfill the the patent attorney's requirements, not become inventor or co-inventor. More than 30 years experience tells me, "Work with/for the attorney - NOT the inventor." I've worked on applications where multiple existing farm implements were arranged and connected in a unique way. Did I need to draw every nut and bolt of combines, plows and cultivators? Certainly not. As I recall, the drawings ended up being mostly diagrammatic representations and a few detail drawings of specific methods to connect the major components. In a case like this, most of the drawing will be done with "language" provided by the attorney.

[MYK]

Lastly, all patents in the US are available for download for free.  The simplest way is to use Google Patents and click the "Save PDF" button (or one like that).  So, you shouldn't have to buy any patents to look at examples.

I'd suggest http://www.pat2pdf.org/ instead.  I've had mixed results with Google Patents;  sometimes it downloads complete garbage to your hard drive instead of a PDF file.

[orangequant]

just asking, since i use this some myself, would there be anything wrong with:
...a water projection means for forcibly displacing water in a substantially linear manner, selected from the group consisting of water cannons and squirtguns, said projection means mounted on a conveyance means for transporting a load, selected from the group consisting of flatbed truck and Chevy wagons, [and the same etc with conveyor and vacuum cleaner]...
and then the truck can be just a box or at most a box with wheels and other means elements can also be boxes... then detail/define each means in the spec??
the only original drawing would be what's new (as already said)

[JimIvey]

I have generally two problems with claiming like that.

First, means-plus-function elements are way too narrow.

Second, the selected-from-a-group language is also way too narrow.  What if you leave one out, particularly one that doesn't exist yet?

Regards.

[orangequant]

First, means-plus-function elements are way too narrow.
Second, the selected-from-a-group language is also way too narrow.  What if you leave one out, particularly one that doesn't exist yet?
Regards.

okay, i'm with ya on the "selected-from-a-group language is also way too narrow" part (though eliminating the "group" language would still require citing actual structure in the spec). but would you please help me understand what you mean by "means-plus-function elements are way too narrow"?? i'd always thought of that as the broadest type of claiming. thanks.
 

[khazzah]

what you mean by "means-plus-function elements are way too narrow"??

A M+F limitation is narrow because it covers exactly those structures disclosed in the spec, plus their equivalents. Not a bit more.

Suppose you claim "means for fastening" and your spec lists nail, screw, and rivet as structures which fasten. You don't get coverage for bolt even though bolt is a fastener.

OTOH, if you used the generic term "fastener" then your claim would cover a bolt. To me, M+F is useful when there is no generic word that covers the structures you envision.

I think of means-for as text replacement: "means for fastening" ==> "nail OR screw OR rivet". 

[JimIvey]

Suppose you claim "means for fastening" and your spec lists nail, screw, and rivet as structures which fasten. You don't get coverage for bolt even though bolt is a fastener.

Just to add a bit to Karen's good answer, some might think that a bolt is an "equivalent" to a rivet or a nail or a screw.  However, the case law (court opinions) has developed to give an extremely narrow range of equivalents to the things specifically described in the claims -- so narrow, in fact, that I don't see any equivalents at all.

"means for ....ing" used to be interpreted very broadly, but Congress changed that by introduction of 35 USC Section 112, paragraph 6.

Regards.

[orangequant]

Karen and Jim--- i appreciate the great answers 
my take-away on this (among other insights) is M+F is a last-ditch effort and i should look first to generics... and ?? in spec define fastener as "any device for joining together two or more objects, such as but not limited to nails, bolts, screws, pins, welds, [etc]"

i get specific with listing possible structures because of a recent court decision requiring that at least one structure be recited in the spec if the term of art in the claim is generic [at least i think that's what it said]... sorry to have so many elementary [to you] questions, but i can't find the case in my bookmarks-- can one of you cite it for me please?? was a recent big 'un, kind of created a doctrine of using spec to limit claims--- tail wagging dog, and most experts hate it-- you guys should see my spec language on this in a recent filing--- the most hideous legalese i've ever written-- i'll be up late if you get a minute, thanks again

[orangequant]

decided to pull this up for your laughing enjoyment--- from a recent spec i filed---
"In part for the convenience of the public, and not by way of limiting interpretation of the appended claims and drawings, the following terms have the meanings stated below, in addition to any equivalents thereof permitted by law, rule, or equity, and in addition to their plain meaning and context within the claims, but all according to their limitations as stated in the claims, and all only as presently known or as would be obvious in the arts to which the terms pertain: ..."
and then, much later...
"Descriptions in this application contain many specificities, but these should not be construed as limiting the scope of the invention but as illustrations of its presently preferred embodiments. Therefore, the scope of the invention should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents, rather than by the examples given."
   too much coffee that night, had my head spinning--- this next time think i'll omit the "only as presently known" part but i had it in there because my read of the case was that the court was concerned with making overly broad claims, e.g., "fastener" could be seen as being so broad as to cover a Star Trek "tractor beam" which, as far as i know, has not yet been invented.

[khazzah]

should look first to generics... and ?? in spec define fastener as "any device for joining together two or more objects, such as but not limited to nails, bolts, screws, pins, welds, [etc]"

I think giving examples of your generic noun, combined with "not limited to" is a good idea.

I'd be with having a statement in your spec where you literally define a term. You might be stuck with your definition. If you leave out the *definition*, you should get coverage for whatever "fastener" means to a POSITA.

i get specific with listing possible structures because of a recent court decision requiring that at least one structure be recited in the spec if the term of art in the claim is generic [at least i think that's what it said].

I recall a recent M+F decision from the Fed Cir along those lines, but can't seem to find it either.

However, in the one I'm thinking of, what happened was that the limitation was found to trigger 112P6 because the noun did not itself impart enough structure. The patentee tried to argue that a POSITA would nonetheless understand what structures were meant. The Fed Cir said that knowledge of a POSITA is not enough when dealing with 112P6, because the statute clearly says that the structure must be discussed in the spec and linked to the function.

It seems like a statement that "fasteners include X, Y, and Z, among others" would cover the bases both ways. If the court decides that "fasteners" has enough structure to avoid 112P6, you didn't really *need* the statement, but I don't see that it hurts. If the court decides that "fasteners" triggers 112P6, then you do need the statement.