new invention combining known ideas

Wiscagent

In answering your question, I will assume that you are not proposing a perpetual motion machine.  In concept your invention certainly could work ? I?m imagining a sail boat moving with the wind but against a current.

Now for the legal stuff.  Simply because the individual elements of an invention are in the prior art does not necessarily render your invention obvious.  If there is no suggestion in the prior art that the elements of the invention could advantageously be combined to make your new invention, then your invention should not be considered obvious.

JimIvey

For what it's worth, I have read of a sailboat dragging one of these to recharge its battery bank:
http://www.realgoods.com/renew/shop/product.cfm/dp/1200/sd/1201/ts/1017104
[TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/82sul]

That's pretty close.  Perhaps close enough to make the waterwheel embodiment obvious.

To answer in the more general sense, a combination of 3 things that have not previously been combined can be non-obvious and therefore patentable.  Notice that I said "can be" -- it depends.

What's the scope of protection?  That described by your non-obvious claim.  In other words, it's up to you (or your representative) to offer the scope of protection you think you're entitled to.

I don't mean to be obtuse about this, but I've seen combinations of only 2 things be successfully established as non-obvious and combinations of 4 or more things compellingly argued to be obvious.  Arguing obviousness is by no means an exact science and it defies simple formulae like the one you suggest.  It's just not that easy.

I hope that helps.

nicolsen

I have the same problem but only 2 known ideas. I can easily prove non-obviousness via demonstrating superiority (i hope this would suffice) but what about the novelty ? The two things were known before so where is the novelty here.
Another question is if something is applyed successfully in one field and one wants to patent it for use in not so different field can it be done? Presuming that the two fields are researched on since 30 years and noone else has made the connection till now.

JimIvey

Novelty means that your invention didn't already exist exactly as you conceived it.  Did the combination of two known things already exist?  If not, your invention is novel.

Superiority is ... well, overused as a metric of non-obviousness by inexperienced practitioners and pro se applicants.  The argument is much more likely to come down to the degree to which there were teachings, suggestions, or motivation to combine the two known things to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time you got the idea.

Lastly, yes, a new, non-obvious use for a known thing is patentable.

Regards.

tot

Jim: Thanks for the reply and for the similar product.  I think I already know the answer to this, but suppose I wanted to take that waterwheel generator that you described and I wanted to place it on a submarine instead of a boat (assuming placement on a sub has not yet occurred or was never contemplated).  It does the same thing, just applied to a different place. Is that obvious? What about placing it on a a torpedo, or scuba gear; same result?

JimIvey

First, I liked Richard's contribution that it would most likely be useful to a sailboat.  If you use an engine to turn a propeller to cause forward motion in water and then drag a waterwheel or propeller in the same water to generate and store electricity, why not just drive a generator from the engine directly?  I would think it would be more efficient.  And, that's exactly what many sailboats and older submarines do.

Of course, the dubious wisdom of the innovation has very little to do with its patentability, but understanding  the value in an invention is a key element in getting valuable IP rights.  However, the fact that I see this as inefficient suggests that your idea is non-obvious -- assuming there's some benefit I'm missing.  So, there may be some hope for a claim -- especially for a waterwheel on a submarine.  That seems non-obvious because a waterwheel needs to be partially out of the water to function properly and the submarine is designed to be used underwater for concealment.  They are therefor incompatible, one would argue, and not obvious to combine.

But, the key thing is to see the type of analysis.  It's very fact-specific.  To ask whether a new location for a known thing is non-obvious is not enough.  The answer depends on the specifics of the thing and the proposed new location, or new context/environment.

I hope that helps.

tot

When writing the application for a combination type application, what is required?  Suppose I invented a car that has flame throwers in the front of it which are used to melt snow.  I also thought of the idea of placing helicopter propellers on the hood so that the car can go anywhere there is snow.  (I just made this up, lets assume it is novel/non-obvious, etc.)

If I were to write the application, is it enough to say: "I claim a car with a flame thrower attached to the front and a helicopter unit with propellers attached to the hood," or do you have to go into how the flame thrower works and how the car works and how the helicopter parts work, assuming that they are all commonly known.  

JimIvey

There are generally two major parts of a patent -- the part the inventor gives to the public, and the part the public gives to the inventor.

The part the public gives to the inventor is the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing anything described by the claims of the patent.  What you've proposed is a very simple claim.  

What's completely missing from your proposed patent application is the part the inventor gives to the public -- a complete description of how to make and use the claimed invention and of any specific preferences you might have.

You don't have to explain how the car works -- many people know that already.  As for the helicopter rotor and power linkage, you don't have to describe that to the extent its already known.  However, I'm sure there are some significant modifications required to make it work on the hood of a car.  My very rough guess is that you would need a rotor length (radius) of at least 20 feet to lift even a very modestly-sized car -- and probably at least 10-15 feet just to lift the hood above snow.  Given that a typical traffic lane seems to be about 8 feet across, you'd have a rotor overhang of about 6-16 feet on either size, at least when in use and perhaps when just trundling along the highway.  Specifying how you address that problem would be very important.

Then there are all sorts of other problems.  For example, controls in a helicopter are very different than in a car (who would'a thought?!).  Left/right is controlled by a stick and rudder pedals (like an airplane) -- and the rudders control a tail rotor missing from your brief description.  Forward/back is controlled by the same stick.  Up/down is controlled by a cyclic -- something resembling a motorcycle twist-grip throttle mounted on an emergency brake handle.  Would you add those into the car's interior in a fully redundant manner in view of the conventional car controls?  Would you double-task some of the car controls to control the helicopter mode?  

Keep in mind that flying a helicopter is very difficult.  Most places won't rent you a helicopter without at least 3,000 as pilot-in-command of a helicopter -- sometimes a high minimum hour requirement for the specific make of helicopter.  For comparison, I rented an airplane with less than 100 hours.  So unconventional controls are something that very few people will be able to use.

For what it's worth, you might be able to do away with rudder pedals and a tail rotor if you use counter-rotating rotors.  You might also be able to shorten them slightly.  However, I think that would increase your power needs.

Another problem is that most piston engines produce too little power relative to their weight to lift a helicopter -- hence the use of turbine engines in nearly all helicopter designs (except for a few very small ones).  I would think using a separate engine for rotors and leaving the ground engine as dead weight would be a non-starter.  And, the fact that it's most likely a piston engine leaves it inadequate in power-to-weight ratio.

See, all these issues (and more) should be resolved and described to properly enable an ordinary person skilled in automotive modification to work with someone of ordinary skill in helicopter design/building to make and use your helicop-car.

If you can do all that, you can get a patent.  Oh, except that a number of hybrid car/aircraft designs have been tried -- and I can't say that none of them was a helicop-car.

Regards.  

tot

Jim said: "My very rough guess is that you would need a rotor length (radius) of at least 20 feet to lift even a very modestly-sized car -- and probably at least 10-15 feet just to lift the hood above snow.  Given that a typical traffic lane seems to be about 8 feet across, you'd have a rotor overhang of about 6-16 feet on either size, at least when in use and perhaps when just trundling along the highway.  Specifying how you address that problem would be very important."

Why is it important that I address this problem? If the idea is novel (which I am asking you to assume that it is), cant I just say propellars and rotor without exact measurements (to be as broad as possible)?   Also, does it matter that it wouldnt fit down a normal highway, if I dont specifically say that it is to be used on a highway?  

Wiscagent

Among the requirements for a patent application is:

 The specification shall contain a written description of
 the invention, and of the manner and process of
 making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and
 exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art
 to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
 connected, to make and use the same, and shall set
 forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of
 carrying out his invention.  (from 35 USC 112)

You need to provide a description of the invention in such full, clear, and concise and exact terms as to enable a skilled helicopter artisan to make your gadget without ?undue experimentation.?  

Also, because an ordinary helicopter can taxi along a runway - much like a car can cruise along a highway, your claims would have to distinguish your ?helicar? from a helicopter.

I know that flame throwers have been carried aboard helicopters.  So your claims would also have to distinguish simply carrying a flame thrower on your ?helicar? from actually using it.  I?m also aware that helicopters have fired tracer bullets, and probably dropped white phosphorous bombs or grenades, so you?d also have to make sure that your claim doesn?t read on any of that prior art.

As Jim wrote earlier, the analysis is ?very fact-specific.  To ask whether a new location for a known thing is non-obvious is not enough.  The answer depends on the specifics of the thing and the proposed new location, or new context/environment.?



Richard Tanzer