Qualification of a Patent - Automotive - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / beginners

author: Freshman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 11:35:01 am
content: Apologies in advance if this question doesnot fall in this scope of the forum. If not, please guide me on what to do.So, I have an idea in automotive.The fundamental principle of the idea is already in the industry now and some automotives do have this within them.However, I am not changing the principle. I am just proposing the system to change with a different set of ICs/circuits.Does the above qualify as a patent? Also, I am not totally confident that whether the existing idea already uses what I am going to propose. But nevertheless, just want to give a try to file the patent.Please let me know whether my changing of the circuit will qualify my idea to be a patent?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 11:52:32 am
content: Quote from: Freshman on December 13, 2024, 11:35:01 amPatents are a waste of time & money unless you have the resources to defend them. more so if it's just a variation of implemntation rather than a whole new concept.

author: Freshman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 12:00:25 pm
content: Thank you for the clarification @mikeselecticstuff.Yes, I understand. But apart from that, do you think the variation of the circuit that's underlying would qualify me to propose a patent?Just want to understand whether my idea can qualify as a patent.

author: Andree Henkel
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 12:33:50 pm
content: Just a variation of the circuit usually is probably not enough. But if your Variation is significant enough it may be.What is necessary (at least in german patent law) is called the "inventive step".Your variation of the implementation/circuit needs to be significant enough to be recognized by patent office as such.example what I would consider inventive step is replacing a measurement bridge topology with another (as long as it not already in use in similar applications), or replacing an oscillator circuit with a truly newly different oscillator circuit

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 13, 2024, 12:54:13 pm
content: Hello been in patents and inventions since 1970s. Have 7, many Pro Se and oa few iscenced.Reccomend book "Patent it Yourself" , Nolo Press, by my old friend David PRESSMAN.US LAW: 35 USC Ch 10, par 102, 103 defines a patentable invention:102. Conditions for patentability; novelty(a) Novelty; Prior Art.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.(b) Exceptions.—(1) Disclosures made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.(2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.(c) Common Ownership Under Joint Research Agreements.—Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if—(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.(d) Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art.—For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application—(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.Enjoy! Bon Chance!Jon

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2024, 07:01:36 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on December 13, 2024, 11:52:32 amTHAT. Unless this is a just vanity project for your resume or own satisfaction.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2024, 09:06:16 pm
content: The rules on what constitutes a patentable invention are a bit esoteric and also significantly up to how your patent is presented, and what other patents in the area say. For instance, if there is a patent on the "old" way, but it includes in it's claims something that looks like what you did, you are out of luck.But beyond that, if your invention is a modification to an existing design you have to realize that your patent at best would only consider that specific modification. That means that the value you can get from the patent is basically limited by the cost/benefit advantage over the existing way, or the ability of people to find a non-infringing way to get the same benefit.Finally, a patent does *not* give you the right to produce something you didn't already have. So if the current designs are patented, and you are only partially modifying them, you would still need to license the original patents to produce your design. On the other hand, if your design is different enough that it *doesn't* infringe on those patents, you don't need a patent of your own just to produce it.It's also not clear what you want to do. If you are just going to make a product and try and sell it, a patent doesn't necessarily help you that much unless you have the resources to track down people who might be infringing, verify that they are actually infringing (such as buying their products and tearing them down), and then pursuing legal action against them. All of that is expensive and time consuming. On the other hand, if you have contacts within the automotive manufacturing industry and supply chain, it's possibly you could work out a licensing deal with a big manufacturer. Then it would be in their interests to make sure nobody else is using the patent. But that's hard to do if you don't already have the contacts. And they may just see your idea and decide they can get around your patent and leave you out to dry.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2024, 09:28:54 pm
content: Wouldn't the best advice be to contact a patent attorney so at least you know what you are up against from a financial point of view ?Someone correct me. I loooove being wrong

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 14, 2024, 09:41:33 pm
content: Quote from: DimitriP on December 14, 2024, 09:28:54 pmOnly problem with that is it'll cost $mucho dinero$ to find out. Lawyers have those funny clocks that only have 4 points on the dial.Probably a better way to go would be to get ahold of a copy of that Nolo Press book on patents. Their publications are really quite good at explaining the nitty-gritty of legal matters.

author: Poroit
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2024, 05:54:00 am
content: G'day freshman,Have a look at the movie "Flash of Genius"(2008) and see if you want to go down that path.

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2024, 08:11:15 am
content: Quote from: Freshman on December 13, 2024, 11:35:01 amFirst, to qualify as an invention, your idea must benew. Do you know for sure that the function has not been implemented in your way before?Second, your idea must beinventive. That's often paraphrased as "a typical expert in the field would not have come up with that idea". A common argument for demonstrating this is that your implementation has unexpected benefits which a "typical expert" would not have seen, or that it would appear at first glance to be infeasible or have major downsides -- such that the "typical expert" might have thought of it, but concluded that it's a bad idea. Can you find good arguments along those lines?Third, I agree with what others have said: Do ask yourself why you really need/want a patent. Given the fact that you don't have any knowledge of the patent process, you will need to pay a patent attorney to stand any chance of obtaining a patent. So you are looking at a $104expense (rough order of magnitude). Are you willing to sink that amount of money, including the very real possibility that the process willnotresult in a granted patent? Does your idea have financial benefits which exceed that number by another two orders of magnitude? Do you have a plan how to realize those benefits?

author: Tation
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2024, 10:37:07 am
content: Quote from: NE666 on December 14, 2024, 07:01:36 pmTHOSE. Unless holding patents accounts for merits in your curriculum.

author: BBBbbb
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 15, 2024, 01:47:32 pm
content: Generally: Whatever you're trying to patent probably already is patented.OEMs and Tier1 suppliers have people just writing up patents based on whatever new tech could be put to use in a car. (at my former employer, large Tier1, we had double digit of these people, they even could not recollect half of the patents they had filed).Second - the lawyer suggestion from previous comments - yeah, I would not be too quick to do that, because the lawyer is incentivized to go through the process with you. And you might as well get it patented. But these comes down to patent offices not being able to properly asses patent requests nor check if same already exist (it's hard, lot of domain specific knowledge needed and they are probably understaffed just for the paperwork).So you might think that you have your moat, but a big player might check (we had teams for this, I was sometimes called in for domain specific technical 2 cents), then see that they can invalidate your patent and take you to court. Heck they might take you to court even if you have a valid patent, and even that could too be painful.Third, how you described it, I'm inclined to say it's not patentable. The patent claim rarely includes circuitry, and the claim part is what the court focuses on. Best would be to check what those patents regarding the product you're trying to optimize have in the claim part, and if your idea has any difference in the claim part. But then again I might have misunderstood the novelty your idea brings.Final, like many others mentioned the patent system is quite broken, and mostly used by big players to hammer down the little ones or for mutual spamming litigation among the bigs.Unless it is something truly novel and potentially game changing, I would not bother with patenting as an individual.

author: janoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2024, 03:51:18 pm
content: Quote from: Freshman on December 13, 2024, 11:35:01 amNobody can say unless you show us what you want to patent, obviously. And the ultimate decision lies not even with the patent examiners but more often than not a court judge once you try to enforce said patent - that's often where prior arts gets discovered and the patents invalidated.But let's say it is patentable and you go through with it, pony up the money for the patent application and get the patent granted.What you will get:- A paper saying that you have been the first person who had idea X. That's all.- A hefty invoice every year for upkeep of the patent, for every territory you have requested its validity for. If you don't pay your lose the patent.What you willnotget:- Protection from patent violations - if some other company comes and blatantly violates your patent, whether intentionally or not, it isyourproblem to both find out - and to sue them. We are talking 7 figures in USD costs minimum there, per lawsuit, just in legal expenses, with no guarantee that you will prevail.- Automatic world-wide patent protection. Nope, that doesn't work like that - you need to pay for each territory where you want to have your patent validity extended extra and it is up to you to enforce your patent in all of those places.- Something of intrinsic value you can sell. As an individual inventor, if your patent is actually useful, you will likely either get blatantly ripped off and bankrupted with legal fees if you try to enforce it (big companies have a lot bigger pockets for lawyers than any individual!) or counter-sued to the ground to be forced to sell it (or possibly get it invalidated) instead of someone actually licensing it. If your patent is only a variation of something existing, then it is very likely it is not going to have much value and nobody will bother with you at all - if you attempt to enforce it against violators, you are likely to have it overturned with some prior art and lose everything.Tl;dr - patents are are a wondrous source of income - for IP lawyers and large corporations. Nobody else. Don't bother.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2024, 09:38:41 am
content: Small detail, as I do understand the legal arguments (somewhat, lol):I think that if it's a circuit, let's say a '555 timer, gets put in as improvement, question becomes whether that's a patent application for the circuit, by itself, or just the 'novel' placement into an automotive setting.Might only be 'novel' in the sense that it hasn't been seen there before.Is there some clear advantage, say in performance, and not 'obvious' ?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2024, 03:27:39 am
content: Another question; Do you have other ideas, or do you seem to come up with ideas, naturally ?That's hard to answer, if you have projects not ready to share, publicly. But if interest is strong, in inventions, you could spend some time examining the U.S. system that is available to study some of the basics, in filing and other services, for novice use.Patent it Yourself is the classic guide book, also available in regular bookstores.You can always try sending PM to my attention, if I can help.