Print

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

[Patentstudent]

Suppose I have invented a machine that can harden plastic components without altering their appearance. Now I want to protect this machine.
So, I would like to be able to act against companies that copy my machine, but I don't want to 'wake up sleeping dogs' by filing a patent application for a machine 'for hardening of plastic components'.
Is it possible to patent the machine in a meaningful way without revealing in the patent description and claims what the purpose of the machine is?

Thank you in advance for your advice and views.

[MYK]

How are you going to fulfill the written description and best mode requirements without saying what the machine does?  Unless the machine has a second purpose that you can explain, you're probably out of luck.  Even if you do have one, someone else could come along, figure out that the machine is useful for hardening plastics, and file a method-of-use application on it, at which point you'd be screwed.

[Patentstudent]

Thanks for your comment MYK. I realized that, but hoped for some overlooked option.

[blakesq]

Hiding the purpose of the machine you received a patent on, is a good way to get the patent invalidated if you ever try to sue someone for patent infringement.  If I was a defendant in such a case, I would try to show that the patent applicant committed a fraud on the patent office by hiding the purpose of the invention, and failing to describe the best mode of the invention.

[klaviernista]

Is it possible to patent the machine in a meaningful way without revealing in the patent description and claims what the purpose of the machine is?

Others have noted the problems associated with trying to do what you propose.  I'll offer a potential solution.  Let me be clear that by mentioning the "solution" here, I am not advocating its use.  However, the practice is widespread enough (albeit innocent in most cases) that it just might work.

What is that practice?  Four words:  Be your own lexicographer.  Don't want someone to pull up your patent application when searching for "machines for hardening plastic?"  Coin your own term for that property/function!  Alternatively, use a term that is not generally used to describe the property/function.  Don't speak in terms of "hardness," but rather in terms of resistance to plastic deformation, or tempor, or some other esoteric term that your average joe schmoe isn't likely to associate with hardness.

It sounds devious, I know.  But to my knowledge, there is nothing "wrong" per se with making it difficult to search for a patent vis a vis the use of unconventional terminology.  Moreover, it is extremely common for inventors to "make up" terms to describe properties. 

Edit:  note that in some jurisdictions (Japan in particular) this practice may not be possible.

[MLM]

Is it possible to patent the machine in a meaningful way without revealing in the patent description and claims what the purpose of the machine is?

Be your own lexicographer.

Along those lines, if you can describe and claim the invention in general terms as opposed to specific terms of art that a competitor would be familiar with, it might help with drawing unwanted attention to the patent. By general terms I mean as if you were trying to describe the invention to a layperson. In the end, however, the best protection will come from a patent that clearly describes the invention, so there is less opportunity for wrangling over claim construction. Also, the PTO usually requires a title that is descriptive of the invention. I've seen objections to titles that are too general, although it doesn't seem to take much to meet the requirement.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

...In the end, however, the best protection will come from a patent that clearly describes the invention, so there is less opportunity for wrangling over claim construction. Also, the PTO usually requires a title that is descriptive of the invention. I've seen objections to titles that are too general, although it doesn't seem to take much to meet the requirement.

I also wonder if the patent might not be attacked from the standpoint that the drafter purposefully hid the ball in order to make the Examiner search the wrong art?  For that matter, getting back to your point above (getting a good patent), having the Examiner search inappropriate art is a likely way to get overly-broad claims that can then be shown non-novel or non-inventive in court...

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Don't speak in terms of "hardness," but rather in terms ...your average joe schmoe isn't likely to associate with hardness.

An apparatus for causing inter-connected pluralities of monomers to go SCHWING!, said apparatus comprising...

 

[doug vagedes]

To the original poster, if it is patentable, why are you opposed to just having a "strong, well-written patent professionally drafted by an attorney" instead of worrying about waking sleeping dogs?  If your machine is as good as you think it is, someone will copy it.  Guarantee it.  But by then you will have built a name.  Then as some of the posters on here have mentioned, down the road you don't have to worry about your patent being proved invalid.   

[JimIvey]

Hmmm....  didn't see the first thing that came to mind.  My apologies if I skimmed the posts too quickly.

If you're cool with protection in the US only, have you considered non-publication?  No one would know of you application until you have enforceable rights.

If you're worried about the title being the all-too-easy give-away, here ya go (free of charge): "Increased Viscosity and Viscoelasticity of a Wide Range of Synthetic or Semi-Synthetic Organic Amorphous Solids".  Gotta love dictionaries and wikipedia for obscuration of language.  Just look up "hardness" and "plastics".

Regards.

[khazzah]

How are you going to fulfill the written description and best mode requirements without saying what the machine does? 

Does best mode always require saying what the machine does? And by that I mean disclosing the ultimate purpose for which the machine is used.

Suppose the machine hardens plastic by heating it a certain temperature for a certain time. Suppose that the machine works for a wide range of temperatures/times, but works "best" at a narrower range. I think best mode requires you to disclose the narrower range. But does *best mode* also require you to disclose that the material you're contemplating is plastic? I'm thinking that best mode is mode of carrying out/making/using the invention, not the mode of use. 

Having written the paragraph above, I've now decided even if best mode *isn't* an issue, that written description might be. That is, if you claim "heating a material" and don't disclose plastic as a material, then try to assert by reading "material" on plastic, the accused infringer will argue that you didn't "possess" plastic.

Perhaps my hypo is too simplistic to be of use here, but maybe it's a starting point for a discussion.

[Patentstudent]

I would like to thank you all for your very helpful comments/suggestions.
I think I see an opening now to move forward.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

I would like to thank you all for your very helpful comments/suggestions.
I think I see an opening now to move forward.

Well.... ...what of enablement?  One skilled is supposed to be able to practice the invention without undue experimentation, right?  If the skilled person can't tell from the specification that the invention is to be practiced on plastics, then I guess they'd have to root around trying to discover the utility of the widget by testing it on various substances.  So then the question might become when does "rooting around" equal undue experimentation?

[Patentstudent]

What if it also has an (be it slightly less pronounced than for polymers) effect on the mechanical properties of some metallic materials such as aluminium and copper and their alloys?
 

[khazzah]

Well.... ...what of enablement?  One skilled is supposed to be able to practice the invention without undue experimentation, right?  If the skilled person can't tell from the specification that the invention is to be practiced on plastics, then I guess they'd have to root around trying to discover the utility of the widget by testing it on various substances. 

Yep, that's the basic standard for enablement. But to refer back to my earlier post, if my spec teaches a process for heating to certain temp to a certain time, then I *have* enabled. I just haven't told you what you might want to use the process for (ie, hardening plastics).

I suggested earlier that not disclosing that the process works to harden plastics might be a problem with written description if you try to assert against a plastic maker.

You mentioned "utility", which is yet another statutory requirement. Would you have a problem with utility? I know "specific utility" is a concern in biotech, but is this ever an issue in other arts?