12:01 Tuesday

Stanley

Though I'm a lifelong fan of the Detroit Red Wings, I'm sure I will get some chills looking down and seeing the Stanley Cup parade past my office building in about an hour. In its honor, here are two design patents inspired by the Grail. Unsurprisingly, both relate to drinking.  Bottoms up!

D461,367 "Drinking Mug"

 
D434,313 "Stanley Cup Shaped Can" 

Patent of the Week: Condom Valve

Was it only this past September that we discovered this gem (see list at bottom of page) among several pro se patent applications by a Hawaiian doctor? Appropriate for today, I'm feeling a bit like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day:

U.S. Patent No. 7,654,265  Condom valve Inventor: Attila Mady Issued: February 2, 2010 1. A condom having a valved geometry, said condom comprising a first layer and a second layer of a material that is capable of providing a barrier to the passage of bodily fluids, microorganisms and viruses, with said first layer and second layer configured in an overlapping fashion to form a plicated membrane valve at a distal portion of the condom, with said first and second layers further configured such that they are tightly apposed to the glans penis, with said condom further including a reservoir for retaining ejaculate at a distal tip of the condom, and wherein said plicated membrane valve is configured such that the aforesaid first and second layers may separate and the membrane valve may open under pressure provided from the urethra to transmit ejaculate therefrom, permitting emission of semen from the reservoir to an area outside of the confines of the condom in the region corresponding to and physically approximated to the introitus of the urethra, to prevent build-up of fluid at the tip of said condom and to permit impregnation of the female partner engaged in sexual intercourse.

Ah, yes. How could we forget this invention, the SkyDome of contraception. Its purpose is "..to permit re-use with the same partner, or to...permit conception...while retaining...barrier type infection control."

I won't post all the details here (you're welcome), but it is worth reading the specification for entertainment (example: this is probably the first patent to use the words "surgically affixed", "Crazy Glue", "condom" and "shaft" in the same sentence. Ouch.)

You have to admire the patience of the examiner, though. Consider this snippet from the first of four interview summaries:

Applicant notified examiner of his displeasure stemming from his experience during prosecution of a different pending utility application. Examiner alerted applicant that he was not the examiner of record in the other pending application. Applicant maintained that his experience thus far with the PTO may be due to his lack of representation by an attorney. Examiner informed applicant that it is his intention to assist applicant throughout prosecution. Applicant maintained that examiner's rejections based on the prior art...were spurious.

Really?? An attorney might help? Ya' think? And recall that this is the inventor who actually did hire an attorney for a quick hit to respond to a messy 112 rejection in his previous patent...only to revoke the POA shortly thereafter.

We'll keep an eye out for more of Dr. Mady's patents in the future. Fun stuff.

The Onion Gets a Patent

No, not that Onion.  But by the time you finish reading this post (and you really should finish reading this post), you'll have to wonder...

Timed perfectly to coincide with today's Federal Circuit decision in Prometheus Labs v. Mayo Clinic, the following patent issued yesterday. Here's claim 1:

U.S. Patent No. 7,588,784 Use of onion extracts to prevent and treat acute and chronic cardiac and vascular complications and their sequelae, as well as to resolve hematomas Inventors: Attila Mady & Juliana Mady 1.  A method of treating hematomas comprising the steps of:     providing an extract of onion (Allium cepa); and     topically applying the onion extract to or proximate an area of a hematoma, for transdermal delivery to increase and accelerate hematoma resorption.

Commentary: If the CAFC is correct that "[C]laims to methods of treatment...are always transformative when a defined group of drugs is administered to the body to ameliorate the effects of an undesired condition."  then there's no Bilski problem (assuming onion extract is a defined group of drugs).

Of course, there may be other 101 problems, like utility. For instance, in looking at the healing effects of onions, here's what the inventors said:

Onions are even more ignored [than garlic]. Used in multiple cultures worldwide as a blood thinner and "cardiac tonic", there has nevertheless been very little research regarding its composition and effects. Yet there is not only overwhelming evidence that the onion contains compounds that have a profound impact on the entirety of hemostasis (including platelet function and the coagulation cascade), but this evidence is obvious and easily demonstrable in standard platelet and coagulation assays.
...
However, the most obvious and dramatic effect of onions is on thrombolysis. Topical application of sufficient amounts of onion juice to a site anywhere approximate to a hematoma (and at sufficiently frequent intervals, approximately every 6 hours) will result in the absorption of said hematoma even days after the formation of this hematoma. Even more remarkably, re-absorption shall occur at sites where there is NEVER reabsorption without surgical drainage, such as sub-periosteal pretibial and olecranon hematomas. Due to the absence of blood flow in these areas, an incision and drainage are always necessary to prevent the progression to fibrosis and the development of permanent tissue deformity.

Hematoma resorption does not only occur in places where it never would under spontaneous circumstances, but is also accelerated, meaning absorption occurs more rapidly (approximately 5-7 times faster than without onion juice). Hematoma resorption is also more complete, reducing the incidence of residual hemosiderin deposition. Finally, hematoma resorption will occur long after it would on a spontaneous basis, up to a week after the initial injury. There is no other thrombolytic known that works beyond approximately 12 hours after initial clot formation.
...
Further, there is also one report that attributes direct anti-arrhythmic effects to garlic (WO9405307). If this is true, it would be logical to assume that onions would also be likely to possess these properties, since onion juice is vastly more active in terms of its impact on the hemostatic mechanism than garlic. This antiarrhythmic property, however, is only conjecture at this point.

There are no citations to documented research or empirical evidence to back up most of these statements, however.  Is the utility of the claimed invention "credible" to a person of ordinary skill in the art? (MPEP 2107) (This is an honest question...I'm no POSITA here.)

Other interesting notes:

• Did you suspect this was a pro se inventor?  Look at the originally filed claims on PAIR to remove all doubt.  Actually, when the 112-ridden first office action came back, the inventor wisely hired an attorney to clean up the claims into a meaningful form.  And then promptly revoked the POA to continue pro se.  Nice.

• Practice Tip #1: When filing an Accelerated Examination application, be sure not to have any missing parts.  That's fatal.  (Here, the wait was not much longer, with a first office action coming just seven months after filing.  The applicant owed $420 for four extra independent "claims".)

• Practice Tip #2: If you are going to have a "Background" section, try to keep it SHORTER than the rest of the specification.  Remember that the Background is the one section that is not required by statute (i.e., 112) or rule (e.g., 1.71 - 1.75), yet it is the one section that is admitted prior art.  You do the math.

• Dr. Mady (yes, he is apparently an M.D.) is the named inventor on another patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,328,764 for a Primary axis prosthetic joint design.  That patent, unlike this one, contains figures.  But Dr. Mady happened to file nine other patent applications on the same day as the '784 patent. Check 'em out:

20090093856     High fidelity electronic tactile sensor and stimulator array, including sexual stimulus
20090093783     Use of vacuum suction in conjunction with diapers.
20090093782     Mask to compress face
20090092794     Turgor shaping. Control of shape and rigidity through the use of pressure transmitting channel patterns (hydraulic channel arrays).
20090092693     Platelet manipulation to prevent and treat endovascular disease and its sequelae, to prevent and treat arrhythmias and to prevent malignancy
20090090671     Apparatus to assist platelet manipulation to prevent and treat endovascular disease and its sequelae
20090090369     Condom Valve
20090090368     Adhesive condom and deployment
20090089934     Gradient bed

To answer the immediate questions:

1) the diaper vacuum appears to be aimed at elder care, not babies.

2) The condom valve has two uses: "to permit re-use with the same partner, or to permit the transmission of semen and thus permit conception as a result of intercourse while retaining the protective effect of barrier type infection control." Sort of like keeping the top down on the convertible when it's raining.

And according to Dr. Mady, "[C]ondoms are completely useless for the prevention of the transmission of the herpes virus. Hepatitis B, hepatitis C and even HIV are only partially prevented with condoms."  Not to get political, but is that the message we've been teaching in our kids' sex ed classes??

3) No, I don't expect Judge Posner to sit by designation as an examiner to weigh in on the obviousness of any of these inventions.

4) None of these other applications have yet been allowed.

Patent of the Week: Fake Thong

For the plumber in us all.

U.S. Patent No. 7,574,752 Garment with Integral faux thong extension and associated method Inventor: Patrick Walters, Long Beach, CA 9. A method for covering an exposed portion of a user buttock crevice, said method comprising the steps of: a. providing a leg wear having a waist line formed along a top-most edge thereof, said leg wear including a lower torso buttocks covering garment provided with a crotch and leg portions respectively; b. providing and disposing a faux underwear garment along an interior surface of said leg wear such that a bottom-most end of said faux underwear garment is attached to said leg wear at a location below said waist line of said leg wear while a top-most end of said faux underwear garment is exposed above said waist line of said leg wear, said faux underwear garment being selected from a group including a faux g-string and a faux thong respectively; c. providing and engaging a first cord with said top-most end of said faux underwear garment such that a posterior section of said first cord remains abutted to said top-most end of said faux underwear garment, said first cord contiguously extending adjacent to an entire circumference of said waist line of said leg wear; d. adapting said leg wear to partially cover a user buttock in such a manner that said waist line of said leg wear is selectively situated below the exposed end of the user buttock crevice during use thereof; and e. automatically adapting said faux underwear garment between stretched and equilibrium positions when said waist line of said leg wear drops below and rises above the exposed end of the user buttock crevice respectively such that said faux underwear garment remains continuously positioned over the exposed end of the user buttock crevice while said waist line of said leg wear is selectively adapted below the exposed end of the user buttock crevice respectively; wherein said posterior section of said first cord remains abutted to said top-most end of said faux underwear garment as said faux underwear garment is adapted between the stretched and equilibrium positions.

Commentary: No Accelerated Examination needed here.  Just a very helpful examiner (female, if that matters) with some 112 issues. Thirteen months later, voila.  Interesting that it was filed with a non-publication request; I'd think the European or South American market might be strong for this invention.  And the first eight claims are apparatus claims, as you might expect.

Patent of the week?  More like Patent of the Rear.  (Commenters, you may now insert your own jokes...)

U.S. Patent No. 7,574,752 Garment with Integral faux thong extension and associated method Inventor: Patrick Walters, Long Beach, CA 9. A method for covering an exposed portion of a user buttock crevice, said method comprising the steps of: a. providing a leg wear having a waist line formed along a top-most edge thereof, said leg wear including a lower torso buttocks covering garment provided with a crotch and leg portions respectively; b. providing and disposing a faux underwear garment along an interior surface of said leg wear such that a bottom-most end of said faux underwear garment is attached to said leg wear at a location below said waist line of said leg wear while a top-most end of said faux underwear garment is exposed above said waist line of said leg wear, said faux underwear garment being selected from a group including a faux g-string and a faux thong respectively; c. providing and engaging a first cord with said top-most end of said faux underwear garment such that a posterior section of said first cord remains abutted to said top-most end of said faux underwear garment, said first cord contiguously extending adjacent to an entire circumference of said waist line of said leg wear; d. adapting said leg wear to partially cover a user buttock in such a manner that said waist line of said leg wear is selectively situated below the exposed end of the user buttock crevice during use thereof; and e. automatically adapting said faux underwear garment between stretched and equilibrium positions when said waist line of said leg wear drops below and rises above the exposed end of the user buttock crevice respectively such that said faux underwear garment remains continuously positioned over the exposed end of the user buttock crevice while said waist line of said leg wear is selectively adapted below the exposed end of the user buttock crevice respectively; wherein said posterior section of said first cord remains abutted to said top-most end of said faux underwear garment as said faux underwear garment is adapted between the stretched and equilibrium positions.

Commentary: No Accelerated Examination needed here.  Just a very helpful examiner (female, if that matters) with some 112 issues. Thirteen months later, voila.  Interesting that it was filed with a non-publication request; I'd think the European or South American market might be strong for this invention.  And the first eight claims are apparatus claims, as you might expect.

Patent of the week?  More like Patent of the Rear.  (Commenters, you may now insert your own jokes...)

97 Days

In the quickest patent to issue so far this year (by my calculation), Intermune, Inc. has been granted U.S. Patent No. 7,566,729 for "Modifying pirfenidone treatment for patients with atypical liver function". The claims appear to cover particular dosing method of administering pirfenidone to treat a patient with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.  Just under 100 days from filing (April 22, 2009) to issuance (July 28, 2009). That's Accelerated Examination in action.

A runner-up, at just over 100 days, goes to Perfect Pushup.  Yes, that Perfect Pushup, whose commercials you've certainly seen if you have ever watched ESPN for more than a few minutes.  It seems that one of the inventors is over 65, and the company wisely has filed Petitions to Make Special to jump to the front of the line.  Their fourth utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,566,292 issued today for a Handle Assembly for Use With an Exercise Bar. All of their utility patents appear to have had quick prosecutions: their longest filing-to-issuance has been 15 months, and the average is about 9.5.

Milking Bilski

My 21-month old son loves to sing the song "Cows" from Sandra Boynton's Philadelphia Chickens album. Okay, so he doesn't know all the words. But he certainly knows the one-word chorus, "Cows". And over the last couple weeks, that word has become consistently more loud, pounding, deafening, pervasive, annoying..., to the point where I can't tell if it is on the CD player or just in my head. Over. And over. And over...

So when Landon IP's Blaise Mouttet [cow-] tipped me off to this week's patent, I knew it had to be written up.

Such remarkable cows...

U.S. Patent No. 7,559,289 Method of and an installation for milking an animal having at least two teats Assignee: Lely Enterprises AG 1. A method of milking an animal having at least two teats, the method comprising: a stimulation phase in which at least one of the teats of the animal is stimulated; and a milking phase in which the animal is milked; wherein the method comprises: applying a stimulation phase and a milking phase to one of the teats of the animal, and applying substantially only a milking phase to at least one of the other teats of the animal.

Commentary: Where to start?

• First, although I did once milk a cow on an elementary school field trip to a farm, it's not an area where I'd consider myself an expert. Still, I think that the milking of animals is a skill/art that's been around since a few thousand years prior to the current Information Age. But apparently it was only with this invention that this more efficient method of milking was discovered.

• No figures? There's a system claim (8) that includes as an element a "stimulation device" and a "control arrangement."  Figures here must not be "necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented" per 35 USC 113.  

• This was a national phase of a PCT application, originally filed in the Netherlands. That accounts for the strange form (the "wherein the method comprises" was originally "characterised by") 

• Bilski. Is the animal, or the teat, the "apparatus" here?  Is it a "particular" animal?  Or is there a "transformation" taking place when extracting milk from an animal?  Note that the other independent method claim (15), begins "In a robotic milking station, a method of milking..."  But claim 1 is entirely manual.  

• First action allowance.  

• "At least two teats".  I understand the need for this language in the claim (to differentiate the actions being performed on the different teats).  But in the title?  Know any animals with only one teat?

  

5vxcemgbrn

Safety for Six-Shooter: Patent of the Week - Part 2

Here's one you may not see everyday:

U.S. Patent No. 7,536,817

No-skip recocking revolver

Inventor: Leonard Storch (New York, NY)

Filed: July 7, 2008

Several interesting notes here:

1. Pro se applicant.

2. Inventor reads this blog.  Though I stumbled on this patent independently with my standard weekly searches, Mr. Storch was kind enough to contact me when his patent issued on Tuesday.

2. Petition to Make Special.  These aren't so common anymore, since they were replaced in August 2006 for all but a few categories by the new accelerated examination procedures.  But one of those remaining categories per MPEP 708.02 is applicant's age.  Here, Mr. Storch attested to his being over 65.  A year later, he has a patent.

3. Jepson claims!

4. A gun patent to a New Yorker?!  Why not!

5. The specification includes the following gems:

• "The inventor of the present invention is neither a gunsmith nor a machinist by trade. However, the inventor is an avid shooter, passionate about Second Amendment Rights, and an experienced inventor by trade having patented several diverse inventions. The inventor has U.S. Army and civilian experience target shooting and hunting with various hand guns and rifles and, at least when younger, was a dead shot earning a marksman medal in the Army."  

• "It is the ambition of this improved revolver inventor to have this present "Non-Skip Revolver" invention manufactured in superior quality "Non-Skip Trigger Cocking Double Action Revolvers" in 22 mag. and 44 mag. calibers for plinking and hunting, and in a small light weight five shot .38 Spl. for personal protection, and perhaps a licensed manufacturer(s) will offer a special edition set including all three caliber revolvers celebrating the Supreme Court's historic Jun. 26, 2008 Second Amendment Decision."

• "The present improvement represents another revolver safety advance. Ill-advised as it may be, it is just too tempting to hunters in the blood rush of hot pursuit of game to holster a cocked revolver to avoid skipping a round, for example, if their targeted game wanders off and they don't take their shot. Many a leg has been shot this way. Revolver accidents account for numerous lawsuits against manufactures. With this new safety feature, a hunter can decock, avoid skipping a round and holster safely." 

• "Who'd have thought, in this day and age of Glocks and tasers, old fashion six-shooters (six-chamber revolvers) could still stand significant safety and functional improvement?"

Certainly not me, Len.  Here's to you, for keeping our legs gunshot-free!

Training wheels for Unicycle: Patent of the Week - Part 1

Because I've always wanted to learn how...

U.S. Patent No. 7,537,229

Unicycle with auxiliary wheels

Inventor: Pao-Kung Wu

From the specification: 

"The unicycle has only one wheel such that the ride skill of the unicycle is more difficult than that of a bicycle.  As a result, some people give up learning to ride the unicycle because they often fall from the seat of the unicycle and gradually lose his/her confidence of riding unicycle during learning.  It's a pity."

A pity, indeed.

Flushing away Bilski

The take-a-number toilet reservation system is back.  And it's mad.

A few years ago, IBM was issued U.S. Patent No. 6,329,919 for a “System and method for providing reservations for restroom use.”  This made news.  The patent soon became the face of all that was evil with the recent patentability of business methods.  In fact, public outcry rose to such a level that USPTO Director James Rogan ordered a reexamination of the patent.  A couple months later, IBM disclaimed the patent.

(Of course, the patent’s poster boy status lives on: like the Walker Digital patent family previously featured here, this disclaimed patent was nevertheless cited by Judge Mayer in his Bilski dissent as somewhere between “ridiculous” and “absurd”)

That brings us to this week’s issuance:

U.S. Patent No. 7.535.367 Airplane lavatory reservation system Inventor: Nitesh Ratnakar (Oak Creek, WI) 1. A lavatory reservation system comprising of; 1) assigning lavatory set to user among multiple lavatories in a facility according to user location in the facility; 2) lavatory reservation request input means; 3) lavatory door lock having means to restrict access to the lavatory based on set of rules; operatively connected to controller; and having input means; 4) a controller; 5) a monitoring device coupled to the controller and adapted to monitor occupancy of a lavatory; 6) computer program code operative with the controller enabling the controller to: receive a request to use lavatory from user; enter user in queue in assigned lavatory set according to set of rules; assign access code for lavatory reservation request; notify user of lavatory status; automatically operate lavatory door lock from second unlocked to first locked position upon lavatory door changing from first open to second closed position subsequent to entry of valid access code into corresponding lavatory door input means.

Commentary: Believe it or not, this is not the first bathroom reservation system since ‘919.  There’s U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0022896, innocently entitled “Queuing methods and apparatus” by its patent attorney-applicant, and U.S. Patent No. 6,237,872 which was actually filed a few years before ‘919 (and granted to Dr. Reuven Bar-Levav, a Michigan psychiatrist who was murdered by a former patient in 1999).

Like those applications, today's also has an individual “non-traditional” inventor in Dr. Nitesh Ratnakar.  Unlike the previous applications, however, this one was filed pro se.  And I must say, it is one of the better pro se filings I’ve seen, both in form and substance of the file history (compare, for example, the classic Godly Powers application).  More impressive is that he filed this application electronically before EFS-Web.  Any patent attorney who suffered through that kludgy system surely appreciates Dr. Ratnakar’s extraordinary efforts.  Even I, a self-proclaimed tech-type, avoided this system and used it just once, and then only because the Rules required it in my particular situation.  So kudos, Doctor.  [Note: I still would strongly discourage prosecution of a patent pro se.] 

Turning to the meat, let’s compare Dr. Ratnakar's claim to that of IBM’s erstwhile ‘919 patent:

1. A method of providing reservations for restroom use, comprising:     receiving a reservation request from a user; and     notifying the user when the restroom is available for his or her use.

Yep.  Reading that two line claim, it’s understandable why people were up in arms.  But it’s not clear if the outrage was because of patentable subject matter (101, following the State Street case) or obviousness (103).  Recall that this patent was about to be reexamined because of prior art, not because the subject matter wasn’t patentable.  [By statute, all reexaminations are based on prior art. 35 U.S.C. Section 302.  Should this requirement be changed to allow for new 101 issues? 112?]

In contrast, Dr. Ratnakar’s claim looks pretty good with respect to Bilski.  There’s some fairly particular apparatuses in there: a door; a door lock; and a lavatory, at least.  And there may even be a physical transformation in the position of the door lock.  This claim’s undoing could turn out to be all those “means” under 112 (or 101 – see Ex parte Snyder), but I’m not looking at the spec to analyze that.

The file wrapper is unremarkable, other than the fact that the pro se inventor successfully navigated through two rejections, an RCE and an examiner interview to get his patent issued.  Then again, judging from his other filings and issued patents, Dr. Ratnakar appears to have quite a bit of experience with the patent system. His "Parking location reminder device" (U.S. Patent No. 7,411,518) is actually pretty nifty, imho.

So what do you think?  Does this week's toilet reservation patent bother you as much as IBM’s ‘919?  If not, why not?

As a final note, I'll point out that then-Director Jon Dudas gave a talk last year at which he reportedly referred to an application the USPTO “recently received for what was claimed to be a better way to stand in line while waiting to use an airplane toilet” as an illustration of declining application quality.  Sounds like Dudas may have been referring to this very patent, rather than IBM’s.  No doubt some will cast this "exemplary" application's allowance as an indictment of the PTO’s ability to separate the wheat from the chaff...

That's FRAHn-ken-steen... (Patent of the Week II)

I'm assured by some of my biology-oriented colleagues that such things are patented all the time, and there is no 101 problem.  (Dupont received its famous patent on the Oncomouse--a transgenic rodent altered to have increased susceptibility to cancer--in 1988.)  Nevertheless, I can't help but get a crazy image in my head whenever I read the title and claims of this patent that issued on Tuesday:

U.S. Patent No. 7,524,491 Non-human animals with human-glial chimeric brains Filed: January 16, 2008 Assignee: University of Rochester 1. A non-human mammal with at least 30% of all its glial cells in its corpus callosum being human glial cells and/or at least 5% of all its glial cells in the white matter of its brain and/or brain stem being human glial cells.

Two prosecution questions: 1) Only 15 months from filing to issuance, and no Accelerated Examination.  Why can't we see that in the "digital arts?"  2) I'm not used to the "and/or" language getting past the examiners, but I suppose it is not a 112 problem if there's no resulting ambiguity.

By the way, I hear that the donor for those human glial cells was a woman.  I can't quite recall her name... Abby something.