Hello...everyone..i had some doubts about the actual process of patenting..I made a barebone arduino which is soon going to be implemented in a rubber manufacturing company.. I am not allowed to discuss the actual method of where the barebone would be used and and for what purpose it would be used. Basically the method of where my barebone would be used has been sent for patent..which my boss would be getting..as he came up with the idea.. my question if that barebone chip is being implemented in a company..can i get a seperate patent for the barebone chip. Thanks
How do you patent a chip that another company makes and has published typical use schematics for?
See Page 14 of the AVR.
That's like saying you want to patent this little barebones board that I published nearly 3 years ago.
Where's the basis?
yeah dats wat i initially thought as well..but i was told by many ppl..dat if u are using the barebone for different applications...and if the method where u will be applying the barebone is innovative and unique..in that case..you can get the barebone patented along with actual method....but i wasnt sure had some doubts..this is y i was unsure..so i guess the actual method would get patented but my chip which would be used in the company..would not..i guess..
It all comes down to the claims as that is the meat of what a patent is about.
In a patent you make numbered claims that typically build on one another
that are the "invention".
Look at any patent, you will seem near the back of the document as
they are always at the end.
You can have an invention that uses or encompasses another invention but then
your invention infringes upon the patent of the first invention.
So If you were to get your invention patented, then you own that invention
but in order to sell it, you would have to get licensing from the other invention owner(s).
However, the other inventor(s) of the base invention would not be able to make and sell your specific invention
without infringing on your patent and would have to get licensing from you,
even though he owns the rights to the base invention.
i.e. he can sell his invention, but he can't combine it with yours and
sell the combination without getting licensing from you.
This kind of stuff happens all the time, often accidentally.
That is why so many companies cross license their patents.
Also, when creating patents, you need to be as broad as possible.
You have to try to think of commercially viable ways your invention will be used
and either patent them as well, or disclose them in the patent document so that
others cannot create "wrapper" patents to block your invention from being used
in certain specific ways.
Also keep in mind that in order to be patentable it has to pass the test of being:
"Non Obvious to someone of ordinary skills trained in the Art".
And that "non obvious" test is basis of MANY patent lawsuits since
it is pretty subjective.
In your specific case, would you be claiming to have invented something
that is not covered by the other patent, or its background material?
And would your invention and claims be "non obvious" to
someone who is familiar with the other patent?
If so, then the invention might be patentable.
The part that really SUCKs with patents right now in the USA
is the riduculous amount it takes for the examiners to get through them.
I've been throught the process over a dozen times and I've never seen anything
like what happening now.
In past, (during the 90's and early 2000s) the process finished in about 2 years.
I submitted a few about 2 years ago and so far ZERO feed back.
i.e. I haven't even got the first set of comments back from the examiners
And on one they are saying it might be another 36 months to get to!
The patent office starting offering an expedition service a few years ago.
So for and extra price, you can get your patent review expedited.
I opted not to do this and it appears that if you didn't,
you are stuck on the bottom of the pile and they never get to you.
Compounding the problem is that the patent office got hit by the sequester budget
cuts which reduced staffing.
Overall, I'm not sure how they can even support and expedited service anyway now that
the patent process has changed from a "first to invent" to a "first to file".
Consider a simple case of
Person A files and doesn't expedite.
Person B files and does expedite but files after patent A.
But since filing date matters, what happens if patent B infringes
on patent A? Or if patent A substantialy discloses many of the claims
in patent B?
This is a real mess, I'm assuming that patents may get revoked because
of this new expedition since there is no way to ensure that an expedited patent
doesn't lose claims to a non expedited patent unless you actually examine
the non expedited patent, and if you are actually examining the non expedited
patents, what doe expedition get you?
What a mess.
Also, the new "first to file rule" totally screws over the small inventors,
since if some bigger entity gets wind of the idea, and files the patent first,
then they get the patent vs the real inventor in the old "first to invent" system.
There are some grey areas where the "first to invent" person may not have to pay
patent royalties to the "first to file" person, if he can prove that he invented it first,
but he won't get the patent.
For all this "patent reform" that is supposedly going on,
(Even Obama mentioned in the latest State of the Union Address)
All I see is one set of problems being exchanged for another
with no real solution to the patent litigation issues.
--- bill
bperrybap:
Also keep in mind that in order to be patentable it has to pass the test of being:
"Non Obvious to someone of ordinary skills trained in the Art".
And that "non obvious" test is basis of MANY patent lawsuits since it is pretty subjective.
It's worse than that. The problem is that many software constructs have actually been patented that are blatantly obvious to "someone of ordinary skills trained in the Art" but the examiners clearly are not. 
This is fouling the system.
my question if that barebone chip is being implemented in a company..can i get a separate patent for the barebone chip.
So, here is the problem: The company (your boss) will be awarded any patent. You want to make a claim against that process; which is essentially a utility patent. In the original (your boss) filing, the patent will contain several required sections: Brief Summary, Brief Description with critical drawings, Detailed Description, Claim(s), Abstract pointing out what is new in the "art" of your claim, and Subject Matter Drawings. In your filing, you can only make a claim against your bosses patent and that claim is for the (use) commercial chip on a generic board. You cannot show the required what is new in the "art" as you provide nothing.
You may be able to secure a patent against the software as process logic assuming that your boss does not; however, it is most likely that your code will accompany the original patent and an enabler to improving a process by unique manipulation of some control process which the hardware/software implements.
Could the logic be replicated with a PIC? Why not? How about an ARM? You see the problem? What if the bare board was removed completely and the sensor coupled to existing control logic in the processing plant?
When dealing with these utility patents, especially around processes, the key is whether the enhancement extends the "art" in a manner that would not be obvious (to a knowledgeable individual in the art) as described by Paul__B.
Ray
I hope your company has a cash rewards program that will provide you a little cash for your creativity because it is very unlikely that you would ever seen a return on your investment if you try to secure a patent on your own.
- Getting a patent is one thing,
- being able to fight a lawsuit if someone violates is a completely different one
- And finding out that someone is using your idea is yet another one.
- If a invention can easily circumvented (?) you are wasting money
(4) is clear (e.g. one processor can be easily replaced by another)
If you cannot do (3) or (2) then (1) is meaningless.
to be fair guys..i kinda know that getting a patent on a simple barebone chip is highly unlikely..they were initially gonna use arduino uno.but because it was expensive...they decided to go for basic barbone..keeping cost reduction in mind..and also energy savings..and i ve nothing against my boss...full credit goes to him..in terms of his idea..and what not..although i did help him in many aspects from purchase point of view..and ofcourse actually making the barebone... I knew my name would not be send for the patent process because there is nothing extraordinary in making a barebone also my boss himself is gonna pursue Phd in germany...so obviously patent in his CV..would be gold...but it just seems kind of weird..that the chip would be soon used in a company in mass lot..like atleast 500 for now...and it wont have any kind of patent..if you guys kind of understand what iam trying to say...i by the way work in the same company where the chip is going to be used..
simplicity has nothing to do with the ability to get a patent.
Patents are about protecting ideas. And to get a patent the idea has to be "non obvious".
I'm not quite understanding what you are wanting to patent.
From my understanding it sounds like your boss came up with the idea to use some
sort of micro controller based circuit for some sort of control purposes and
your participation was building the h/w around an AVR and potentially
implementing a portion of the idea in the code inside the IDE.
What Isn't clear to me is what, if any, other "non obvious" ideas you are wanting to patent.
Now if you participated in actually coming up with part of the methodology used inside the chip,
(not just coding it) which has claims that are in the patent then you should be a co-inventor on the patent.
--- bill
actually its more of a doubt really..i personally know that my chances of getting a patent seems quite weak..but my doubt is that if a method which in terms of circuitry only includes barebones with RF modules which is say around 90percent of the method....the rest method i cant talk about..BASICALLY ITS JUST USING SOME BASIC ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS.AND APPLYING IT IN A INNOVATIVE WAY..WHICH HASNT USED BEFORE IN A FACTORY..anywyaz if that method is being used in a company..and if it succeeds in getting patent..shouldn't the circuit part of the method should also get patent along the with the whole method..the chip would be used in massive quantities..in a company..surely the company will eventually patent the chip or copyright it..or i dont even know the actual term for it...thats all my doubt is really.... OK PUT IT THIS WAY...
Can there be a case where a company is using a mechanism...which is very basic..probably used by thousands of ppl..but used in a innovative way in that company..which is different..IN THAT CASE WOULD THE MECHANISM GET PATENTED..IF ANYONE CAN HELP ANSWER THIS..THEN I GUESS I DONT SEE THE REQUIREMENT OF ME UNNECESSARILY ADDING MORE POSTS IN THIS TOPIC BECAUSE ITS JUST A STUPID DOUBT I HAVE..THANKS GUYS ..APPRECIATE YOUR HELP...
riju:
my question if that barebone chip is being implemented in a company..can i get a seperate patent for the barebone chip. Thanks
You're trying to patent something that was developed during your employment, and your employer is also patenting some other part?
A normal sensible contract of employment would grant your employer full commercial rights over any intellectual property that you created as part of your work. It is also quite common for contracts to give your employer control over the process of patenting any of the IPR you create. If you're thinking about this with a view to making money from your IPR then that is very unlikely to happen.
The act of trying to claim IPR for yourself without the knowledge and approval of your employer, and perhaps in competition with them, could easily compromise your working relationship with your employer and anyone else that he is involved with. The moment they stop seeing you as an asset and start seeing you as a potential liability, your chances of working in that community in future take a big dive.
If your reasons for wanting to claim the IPR are to be able to show future employers how clever you are, you don't need a patent to do that.
If the part that you're thinking about patenting was actually patentable and worth patenting, I suspect your employer would already be doing that since he is clearly aware of the potential.
and if it succeeds in getting patent..shouldn't the circuit part of the method should also get patent along the with the whole method
No.
The patent applies to the idea and the application of that idea and has absolutely nothing to do with the implementation of the idea. If it were then it would be a very poor patent and easily circumvented.
I have a few patents myself and with one of them I don't even recognise my idea from what eventually got published in the patent grant.
..anywyaz if that method is being used in a company..and if it succeeds in getting patent..shouldn't the circuit part of the method should also get patent along the with the whole method..
No!
Be thankful you are employed. Posting on any public site your intent to claim any portions of patent rights will get you fired! My employment in past provided patents to my employer; I got a little cash bonus for smiling and participating with the attorneys so they would capture all aspects of inventions.
Social media and forums can provide your employer with evidence that you are disgruntled or seeking financial reimbursement or technology rights on your own. The ice is very, very thin!
Ray
Another idea of a patent is that if you work for "X" company and make a thing, YOUR name is on the patent and ALL RIGHTS to that patent are held and owned by the company.
you cannot patent someone else's work, that is obvious, even if it is in your company. your boss cannot put his name on your work. and you cannot hold the patent if you were employed to make the device. you get your name on it, they get all rights.
also, you may have an employment contract that states that ANY work you do, at the office or at home, is the property of your employer. your name is on the patent, they own the rights. any work you do underemployment will give all rights to the employer.
if you write a program that us UNIQUE and has not been written before, you MAY be able to get a patent.
now here is the second part. you can get a patent and sell it, or never defend it. you have the honor of having a certificate on the wall. something that not many people can claim.
also, you can sell rights to use your patent for $1.00 this keeps everyone using it to use it and recognize you as the patent owner. if you speak to an attorney they may write it so that anyone can use it for non-commercial use. and anyone who uses for for commercial use pays $1.00 for the first $10,000 worth of product sales, and $100 for each $10,000 worth of sales. something very low so they would rather pay than fight. it should also have a clause that allows you to alter the contract at some point in case you can sell it for some large amount of money.
all that said, I do not think you can use the Arduino or any derivative of it in a patent. the Arduino is licensed and your use means you have accepted that all use is open source. your fight in court would be very hard.
you might be able to develop and then port it to a non-arduino platform. I worked for a company that patented a mathematical formula for control. no one could use any method to achieve the same control without violating that patent.
Honeywell and Siemens has to purchase equipment and could not use a computer to do that type of control. it was mathematical so no one could use pnuematics or electronics or hydraulics to get the same result.
this advise is worth every penny you paid for it.
I worked for a company that patented a mathematical formula for control. no one could use any method to achieve the same control without violating that patent.
Not in the UK they didn't. That is one of the things that you can't patent.
Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.
From
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-cant-be-patented.html
this advise is worth every penny you paid for it.
Yep.
dave-in-nj:
Another idea of a patent is that if you work for "X" company and make a thing, YOUR name is on the patent and ALL RIGHTS to that patent are held and owned by the company.
In the US, patents can only be granted to people, not companies.
The employee's name will always be on the patent.
However, since the owner of the patent can license the patent rights,
the typical thing to do in an employment contract is to require the employee
sell his patent rights to the company once the patent issues.
The sale, even if for single $ helps solidify the transfer of the rights
to ensure assignment to the company is not challenged in the future.
--- bill
I have mailed my boss regarding patent doubts..he has told me everything I needed to know..anyways thanks a lot guys for sharing your thoughts..I certainly have learned quite a bit regarding patent issues and what not...thanks