Print

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

[Covi]

Hello,

Is an underwater whistle patentable?

A professional Patent search has determined that no other underwater whistle exists.  With some minor design changes of an existing sports whistle the whistle becomes very effective at producing a whistle sound underwater.

Thank You - Covi

[bartmans]

I do not see any reasons why it would not be patentable (in principle). The invention should of course be new and inventive.
I wonder if your disclosure in the question would not already have made your invention obvious for the proverbial skilled person.

Regards.

[WTF_Over]

Hello,

Is an underwater whistle patentable?

A professional Patent search has determined that no other underwater whistle exists.  With some minor design changes of an existing sports whistle the whistle becomes very effective at producing a whistle sound underwater.

Thank You - Covi

Ask your searcher to consider the term "sonar".

There have been some developments in the field since Da Vinci pioneered it in 1490.  They may warrant consideration.

[khazzah]

Hello,

Is an underwater whistle patentable?

A professional Patent search has determined that no other underwater whistle exists.  With some minor design changes of an existing sports whistle the whistle becomes very effective at producing a whistle sound underwater.

Thank You - Covi

Ask your searcher to consider the term "sonar".

There have been some developments in the field since Da Vinci pioneered it in 1490.  They may warrant consideration.

Hello,

Is an underwater whistle patentable?

A professional Patent search has determined that no other underwater whistle exists.  With some minor design changes of an existing sports whistle the whistle becomes very effective at producing a whistle sound underwater.

Thank You - Covi

Ask your searcher to consider the term "sonar".

There have been some developments in the field since Da Vinci pioneered it in 1490.  They may warrant consideration.

WTF_Over's may have made his point in an obtuse manner, but his point is valid: broadly described, an "underwater whistle" could be viewed as a device that produces sound underwater, which also describes sonar. In patentese, WTF_Over is saying that sonar anticipates an underwater whistle.

On the other hand, perhaps you have something more specific in mind when you say "underwater whistle". If you describe the *structure* of a whistle, that's certainly different than the structure of a sonar device.

A professional Patent search has determined that no other underwater whistle exists. 

Really? I did a two-second Google patent search on "whistle underwater" and found pages of hits.

That tells me you need to focus on the specific structure that makes your whistle different than the other whistles you know about.

[Covi]

Thank you for your great replies.

So if the structure is different then it has potential?  I'm wondering if such a device would be rejected from patenting as being obvious since many whistles already exist.   

But would it be obvious underwater if nothing else existed.  A whistle design to me would be obvious out of water.

I'm not sure if I'm asking the question correctly.  I'm trying to understand the concept of obvious and how it applies to existing devices that maybe used environments they were note intended for.

Covi

[NJ Patent1]

Covi:  Your claim would be to an “apparatus”, having parts arranged as shown in figures and described in the body (specification) of the patent.  The fact that other underwater whistles are known (in the prior art in patentspeak) is relevant but not dispositive. 

If the structure (“design” has special meaning in patent law as one kind of patent) of your whistle is the same as or insubstantially different from whistles that work on land, the fact that you discovered a property of such whistles (surprise! they work under water!) is irrelevant.  If such were unexpected (what would an acoustic engineer say?), you might get a claim to “a method of making noise underwater”, limited to using your land-whistle, the structure of which is described in the claim(s). 

The US does not grant patents for a “use” of anything.  In the US we approach this through method claims, as in a method of treating a disease by administering a known drug (aspirin) that was never known - or expected - to be therapeutically effective for that disease.  Provided that such therapy was not inherent. For example people who had the flu took aspirin for a headache, but per force (inherently) also experienced a reduction in fever, a claim to a method of reducing fever by administering aspirin might well be inherently anticipated (i.e. not new).  What the prior art intended the device (apparatus) to be used for is rarely relevant. 

[ertanyildiz]

First of all, we should set the criteria for being patentable for an invention.
The technical terms will be
1-Novelty
2-Inventive step
3-Obvious to the skilled person in the relevant art
As I understand, your underwater whistle has novelty, but it is not clear that if it has inventive step or not.
You mention "minor design changes" in your question. The critical question is that "Are these minor changes obvious to the person skilled in this field?". If it is not obvious then your invention may be accepted as inventive.
You can underestimate these changes, but some "minor" changes may be very important and critical.
And the most important aspect in your situation is that it seems that you overcome a technical prejudice in this field.
Please refer to the article http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guiex/e/c_iva_4.htm on "overcoming a technical prejudice and inventive step".
No one tried to make these minor changes to a sport whistle and use as an underwater whistle, because they had some technical prejudices. Then this makes your product both new and inventive.

Regards

Meslek Patent Ltd. Co.

E-mail: ertan.yildiz@meslekpatent.com
Web: http://www.meslekpatent.com