Print

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

[BobRoberts]

Re: Drawings for use in a Design Application...  And, please disregard any anticipation/obviousness issues, and focus more to the 'adequate disclosure' aspect...

For simplicity sake, lets say that we have a cylinder with an elliptical cross section (don't know if a cylinder can have an elliptical cross-section, or by definition if a cylinder is limited to having a circular cross-section, but please bear with me).  And the cylinder (with elliptical cross-section) is shown in a Design application as a perspective view, a front view, and a side view, and top and bottom views.  Now, from the perspective, front and side views, it is clear that what is shown is an elliptical-cross-sectioned cylinder, and the height, major and minor axes can be (relatively) determined from the drawings.  And, the curvature of the cylinder follows what one would expect from geometry.  But, there are no lines along the curved surface showing/indicating curvature.  Is this a  problem (i.e., problematic regarding inadequate disclosure)? 

To me, it seems like since the 'cylinder' here is what one would expect from a cylinder (i.e., the curvature is consistent with what geometry would predict) , that the cylinder is sufficiently disclosed even without the shading/curvature lines along the surface of the cylinder to indicate curvature, and thus should be protected as at least a 'common' elliptical cross-sectioned cylinder. 

Problematic (withput curvature-lines)? 

If the "design" being protected is a cylinder with a particular elliptical cross section (again, anticipation/obviousness issues aside) does it seem that the above-mentioned drawings would be sufficient is protecting the Design?

Thanks for any thoughts.

MPEP says: ¶ 15.49 Surface Shading Necessary
The drawing figures should be appropriately and adequately shaded to show clearly the character and/or contour of all surfaces represented. See 37 CFR 1.152. This is of particular importance in the showing of three (3) dimensional articles where it is necessary to delineate plane, concave, convex, raised, and/or depressed surfaces of the subject matter, and to distinguish between open and closed areas. Solid black surface shading is not permitted except when used to represent the color black as well as color contrast.

Again, here the surface is uniformily curved (without any raised, depressed, concave, convex or open areas/surfaces). And, please assume that the material forming the design is uniformly matt (i.e., non-shiny) and/or not of consequence, and that color is not a feature of the design.

Thanks

[Yak]

From my experience with design applications and a lot of USPTO objections/rejections based on the drawings, I can offer this guess if I understand what you are saying.  And an elliptical cylinder is ok.

If you have an elliptical cylinder, assuming it is symmetric and does not comprise any surface ornamentation which would require you to show every side; at a minimum you would probably need to show the perspective, front (back is mirror image, one side (opposing side is mirror image), and top (bottom is mirror image).  The perspective and top (bottom) would adequately disclose the shape of the cylinder, however, I could see the examiner rejecting the application based on disclosure if no surface shading is provided since the front (back) and side (opposing side) would appear to simply be rectangular shapes if properly located straight-line shading did not convey a curved appearance.  Particulalry since the curve orientation would be different on the major and minor axis sides.

[BobRoberts]

Thanks Yak.

In this hypo, I would plan on showing perspective, front plan, right side plan and top plan (and as you mentioned, appropriately indicate that back, left-side and botton are mirror images in the description for the respective front, right-side and top).  It sounds like (especially from what you mentioned) that I definately want to show shading on the perspective view to indicate curvature.  Re: the plan/elevation views (i.e., top, front, side), I thought these views were 2-dimensional in nature (and thus wouldn't require shading).  Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Thanks again.

[Yak]

I have not found a definition of a plan view in the MPEP.  It was my understanding a plan view was straight -on view of the article as positioned on a horizontal plain; this is kind of confirmed by usually only seeing top and bottom views described as plan views while front, rear, and side views are typically described as elevation views.  It looks to me based on issued references and the USPTO guide (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/design/disclosure.html) that plan views are shaded as well. 

I typically avoid using "plan" or "elevation" language the description and simply use top, bottom, left side, front, rear, etc. as the description of the views.  I also find that even though the MPEP says surface shading is not required, the examiners will typically make an objection or rejection if there is none on the surface, obviously this does depend upon the particular design features.

I would use appropriate straight-line, curved surface shading on the perspective and the orthogonal front and side "elevation" views.  Try to make the shading consistent so the examiner can tell the side is the side and the front is the front.  It seems to me that sometimes the examiners tend to have a "born last night" attitude toward stuff and will not draw the obvious conclusions to shape from one view to the next. 

[JimIvey]

Sorry if this is off-target, but it sounds as if the problem is that Bob would like to show some shading but fears that shading is not permitted. 

While solid black surface shading is not permitted, hatching patterns are permitted to show shading.  You'll see parallel lines, typically thinner that the other lines and often broken periodically, in other design patents. 

I'd suggest looking up some design patents and seeing for yourself how they do shading.

Regards.

[Yak]

Oh, maybe I was misunderstanding his question.  Either way, I agree with Jim. Using issued designs having similar shapes is what I rely on to answer 80% of my "how the heck do I shade that" questions. 

[BobRoberts]

Hi Jim and Yak,

Actually, I was wondering more whether it was necessary to use shading in circumstances where the curvature would follow 'what you would expect' from the top. bottom, side and perspective views -i.e., in the elliptical cylinder view mentioned above, from a perspective, front and side view, it is understood (inherent?) as to the curvature of the object, and was wondering whether shading is necessary. 

Essentially, client is attempting to save money, and can provide decent dwgs.  However, client cannot provide dwgs with shading.  So, I was just trying to save client money (and eating significant time to do so)...  Guess I'll just hafta request that shading be added to dwgs from client, or recommend sending out to draftsperson.

Thanks for all your input..   BTW, I have been perusing the USPTO Design Patents, to see how shading is applied (and that is appears to be applied in most circumstances)...  I'll grab a few images as an example for client to use if they desire shading.

Thanks again...

[JimIvey]

Bottom line in design patents is that your drawings are your claims.  Any feature you want to cover has to be clearly visible in the drawings.

Whether your particular design requires shading is something I can't answer without knowing more.  If you make the drawings and can show all the important features without shading, there you go.  Otherwise, use shading where ever necessary to illustrate features you want to prevent others from using.

Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.  There's a reason this work pays reasonably well; it's hard.

Regards.

[BobRoberts]

Thanks,

Client added shading, and it looks good... Thanks for the input.

[PatentDraftsman]

General observations – Cylinders and Design Drawings
A true perspective view of a cylinder by itself would not provide full disclosure.  If a cylinder is drawn in perspective it would appear tapered due to the vanishing point. The end closest to the eye would appear larger than the end further away.  Additional views would be required.  If a cylinder is drawn in  "parallel" perspective (oxymoron?) or possibly isometric, additional views are necessary to express height and width. The major diameter of the ellipse in the parallel perspective view might establish the true diameter, but a top or bottom view is necessary to prove the cylinder is round - not oval.  The height in the parallel perspective view could be distorted due to foreshortening.
Shading the front (in this case and/or side and back) view of a cylinder is not merely randomly placed vertical lines. When drawing an elevation of a cylinder the shading is supposed to be expressed as though the light source is at the top left of the drawing page. Therefore, the shading on the right side of the cylinder would be more concentrated (in shadow).
For manufacturing purposes, top and side views are the only views necessary to fully disclose the design of a cylinder. The information provided in these two views is enough to fabricate the cylinder. No shading required.

I’d go with:

Fig. 1 – Isometric View (3/4 top view)
Fig. 2 - Bottom View
Fig. 3 – Side Elevation

I'd add a lot of pretty shading on all surfaces to make the examiner happy.

The reason I’d go with a bottom view instead of a top view is because the top is shown in the perspective view.

[Yak]

Also keep in mind that an isometric view is a plan view from an obliquw angle, in other words a perspective without "perspective" or a vanishing point.  Many examiners will reject a drawing under 112 if you show too much perpective in your isometric view.