Print

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

[robbie25]

Hi Guys

Newbie here. I'm wondering if you could take out a patent for a pretty common item, but making it with a very specific and different type of materiel then it is typically made with.

So, as an example, baseball bats are almost universally made out of ash or maple. Could I patent a baseball bat made sout of one specific type of rare wood? Say, coffeewood, or something?

Not that you would choose coffeewood randomly, but let's say there was a specfic reason you felt coffeewood would make a better baseball bat, would that be patentable?

Note: my idea isn't patenting coffeewood as baseball bats. I'm just using it as an example.

TIA

[Dazed-n-confused]

... patent for a pretty common item, but making it with a very specific and different type of materiel then it is typically made with.

So, as an example, baseball bats are almost universally made out of ash or maple. Could I patent a baseball bat made sout of one specific type of rare wood? Say, coffeewood, or something?

Not that you would choose coffeewood randomly, but let's say there was a specfic reason you felt coffeewood would make a better baseball bat, would that be patentable?

The general approach using your hypothetical is, if the coffeewood bat is both brand new (never before existed or described) and not merely obvious in view of all the other types of materials used for bats, then it can be patentable.

More specifically (again just sticking with your hypothetical), it is entirely possible the patent office would likely take the position that a coffeewood bat is obvious if coffeewood is used by others for any purpose or characteristic making it also suitable for use as a bat.  That is, if it's known to have good structural resiliency or strength or whatever.  (This may be what you meant by "a specific reason you felt coffeewood would make a better bat".)

But even absent any prior evidence of "good structural resiliency or strength or whatever", the patent office is still likely to argue obviousness just on the principle that mankind has tried to build things out of pretty much every type of wood, therefore your having built the bat from coffeewood only represents an obvious "try out all the suspects" approach.

On the other hand, if coffeewood is always said by people generally knowledgeable of wood characteristics to be worthless and weak, but despite this you figure out that it can make a better (or even just suitable) bat, then you might be able to make good arguments against this "obvious to try it" rationale.

Hopefully these generalities will help guide your actual situation.

[robbie25]

Thanks for the reply. That helps a lot.

[klaviernista]

Not that you would choose coffeewood randomly, but let's say there was a specfic reason you felt coffeewood would make a better baseball bat, would that be patentable?

There are many patents covering baseball bats made out of exotic alloys.  E.g., SC777, TiVaC, etc.  I think that answers your question quite succintly.  but if not, yes, old articles made from new materials are patentable subject matter.  Whether they are novel and non-obvious is another matter that depends on the content of the relevant prior art.

[klaviernista]

Excerpted claims from U.S. 7910224

"1. An article comprising


(a) a permanent substrate which at room temperature has a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range between −5.0×10−6 K1 and 25×10−6 K−1;

(b) a fine grained metallic coating extending over at least part of an inner and/or outer surface on the permanent substrate, having an average grain size between 2 and 1,000 nm, and a coefficient of thermal expansion in the range between −5.0×10−6 K−1 and 25×10−6 K−1; and

(c) said article exhibiting no delamination and the displacement of the coating relative to the underlying substrate is less than 2% after said article has been exposed to one temperature cycle consisting of exposure to liquid nitrogen for one minute followed by exposure to 90° C. hot water for one minute, or one temperature cycle according to ASTM B553-71 service condition 1, 2, 3 or 4; wherein

said fine-grained metallic coating has a ductility ranging from 1 to 20%.

25. The article according to any one of claims 1... wherein said article is selected from the group consisting of a golf club shaft, a golf club face plate, a golf club head, an arrow shaft, a cartridge casing, a baseball bat, a softball bat, a fishing rod, a ski pole, a hiking pole, a mold, a mold component, a tooling part, an automotive part, an aerospace part and a bicycle part.

[NJ Patent1]

looks to me like patentee may have gotten away with something.  When designing a laminate structure, one always tries to match coefficients of expansion (unless there is a specific reason not to, like you want the coating to fail and expose substrate or you want the article to curl-up).  It is my understanding that selection of a material of construction is prima facie obvious (rebuttable).  Kudos to whoever prosecuted that application.