There seems to be no way around it: patent drawings cause a lot of anxiety. This is understandable. The drawing
regulations for the USPTO are hard to find (37CFR§1.181 through 1.185). They are confusing. And horror stories about patent drawings are
all too common.
The purpose of this post is to put this anxiety behind
you by providing you with some assumptions that can be used to help guide you
through the process.
Assume
that drawings are always required. A
first reading of the USPTO regulations often leads people to believe that: 1) drawings are not always required for a
patent; or, 2) that photographs can be substituted for drawings. These people are correct: the regulations do
say that. Unfortunately, as a practical
matter it doesn't work that way. The
USPTO requirements for waiving the drawing requirement and permitting
substitution for a photograph are so restrictive that it never really occurs. In the end, the best strategy is to simply
make the drawings.
Assume
an applicant should put into drawings everything they think is important. The USPTO regulation is
pretty clear here: the
drawing in a non-provisional application must show every feature of the
invention specified in the claims.
Unfortunately, as a practical matter an applicant rarely knows the contents
of their claims until the patent application and patent search are
completed. In the end, the best strategy
is to trust the inventor. An inventor
knows more about their invention than anybody else so if the inventor thinks a
feature is important it is best to put it in the drawing.
Assume
your application drawings have to be publishable. The USPTO drawing
standards are strict for a reason. In
the end, these drawings will be published and the USPTO has no control over how
drawings will be used. The USPTO standards exist so that once the patent is
published the drawings will be legible and understandable whether they are
rendered on a smart phone or printed on a 30 year old dot matrix printer. In order to accomplish this, the USPTO requires
that drawings be ready for publication before they release an application for
examination. While there are
technicalities that might allow examination to start before the drawings are
finalized don’t be tempted by this illusion.
A patent that proceeded along those lines would be served with a
requirement to prepare drawings compliant with the standards within 60 days from the date of the notice. The penalty for failing to comply is the abandonment
of the application. In the end, the better
strategy is to just make drawings that comply with the standards.
Assume
that patent drawings are not expensive. There
are a lot of patent drawing services that can provide drawings that meet USPTO
standards. Typical prices range from $35
for a simple drawing to $150 for a complex drawing. It is reasonable to assume that a set of
drawings for a simple mechanical patent will cost less than $500. Almost every
service in the market provides fixed price quotes.
Assume
you need more drawings. The
purpose of a patent drawings it to assist in understanding the inventions and, to put it frankly, patent drawings are quaint by today’s marketing
standards. They are black and white line
drawings with no shading, no 3D rendering and lots of numbers with no
text. They are not suitable for use with
marketing or other types of pitch materials.
An inventor should assume that marketing drawings and other renderings
will also have to be produced.
Assume
that your patent representative can help you.
Remember that you are not alone. Patent agents and attorneys look at patent
drawings and work with patent drawing services on a daily basis. If you have concerns and questions, don’t
hesitate to ask your representative.
That is why we are here.
Below is a summary of selected patents that have
been recently issued in textile related classification codes:
Shading process: A shading process characterized by using a
composition comprising a phthalocyanine to which at least one dyestuff is attached
through a covalent bond. This one is a
beast but the bulk of the patent appears focused on attaching dyestuff
covalently to the outer edge of the phthalocyanine complex. I believe one target of this patent is to
replace brightening agents used in laundry detergents with the benefit of not
changing the color of the underlying fabric, however, the patent may be
significantly broader in scope.
Patent: 8685116. Inventors:
Hohener, et.al. Assignee: BASF Se.
Elastic boot cuff: A decorative article for boots comprising a
cuff manufactured from either a length of material or elastic material having
fur, feathers or other decorative articles fastened thereto. An interior pocket
is included for storage of money, credit cards, I.D. warmers, coins and the
like. Patent: 8683715. Inventors:
Cantrell and Cantrell. Not
Assigned.
Shoe tongue securing
device: A shoe having an upper
with a tongue and an outer shell in which the tongue has a bulging extension on
the medial side, in which the outer surface of the tongue has a connector that
is aligned with a connector on the inner surface of the outer shell. When the
connectors are aligned together, the tongue is secured to the outer shell. Patent:
8683716. Inventors:
Raysse, et.al. Assignee: Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. Ii
Support for inclusion
in article of footwear and method for raising the arch of a person's foot: A support arranged for disposition within a
shoe to raise the arch of the foot by turning the forefoot and inverting the
rearfoot, thereby locking the midtarsal joint. Patent: 8683717. Inventor:
Richie. Not Assigned.
Jim Carson is a principal of RB Consulting, Inc. and
a registered patent agent. He has over
30 years of experience across multiple industries including the biotechnology,
textile, computer, telecommunications, and energy sectors. RB Consulting, Inc. specializes in providing
management, prototyping, and regulatory services to small and start-up
businesses. He can be reached via email
at James.Carson.Jr@gmail.com or
by phone at (803) 792-2183.
No comments:
Post a Comment