You know what I really appreciate? Travel coffee/tea/whatever mugs that keep my beverage hot for hours. And not just a couple, but for 5 or so. Up until recently, I'd been using the same one for well over a decade because it was so incredibly effective. Unfortunately, it finally broke, and I was forced to use a newer version of the same container--only to find that it's not nearly as good! What happened?
I know for a fact that my old travel mug had multiple patents (this is me, of course I looked). Why abandon them? Ok, aside from the fact that given the age of my tumbler, they had likely passed into public domain (remember, patents have specific time limits). But that doesn't mean they couldn't continue to use the same design.
In celebration of the life of the coffee mug I loved and lost, and in hopes that the new one I bought for my husband's birthday is better--despite being the same brand--let us look at some Contigo (owned by Ignite USA) coffee tumbler lid patents.
Please pay no mind to the table chaos in the background
There are three listed on the base of my current tumbler: 7,546,933, 7,997,442, and D564,841. Without looking them up, I can tell you immediately that these are not at all new and have quite likely passed into public domain. Since it also claims patent pending, I must assume newer tech is also at work. Let's look for the newer ones. Also, both of the utility patents are continuations within the same family and don't appear to be the tech behind the particular mug they're printed on, which makes them even less interesting for this entry.
Also, I'm going to stick to utility patents, because that would be more relevant to the ability to keep my coffee warm for long periods.
Contigo/Ignite USA haven't been very active lately when it comes to patents, as it turns out. There is nothing more recent than 2020--either granted or in application phase. This is a little disappointing, but perhaps their business plan has its reasons.
Let's look at US 10,336,513 Lid Having a Pre-venting Lid Lever and a Seal Arm Assembly. It looks moderately similar to what I have, but not quite the same. I think it's a different model; perhaps it is more effective. Maybe I should buy more tumblers and find out!
A diagram of the lid assembly from US 10,336,513
Next up is US 10,455,959 Portable Beverage Container with a Robust and Easily Cleanable Seal Mechanism. It's nothing like the coffee tumblers I know--it looks more like it is intended for chilled beverages, with the straw-like opening.
This image makes the lid look impossibly complicated
Finally, we have US 10,898,017 No-Spill Drinking Container, that again looks more like it is for a chilled beverage, similar to the above. In fact, they might be for the same whole bottle, just different parts.
It is hard to spill when drinking with a straw
How disappointing! None of these are for my coffee mug and none of them explain why the newer version is less effective. Perhaps more research of other patents and other patent office databases would be required.
If you haven't met me in person, you are likely unaware that this summer, I decided it was time for my first tattoo. (37 felt like the right age.) Since then, an artist has been working on my left arm across multiple sessions to complete an image of my favorite native Texas flowers.
My arm immediately after the second session; still red and irritated
I may be one of the cool kids, and able to prove it, but I'm still a PTRC librarian and unable to contemplate anything without bringing in intellectual property. So, as you may expect, I've been thinking about patents related to tattooing technology. Sure, it's an ancient art that humans have practiced without the need of electricity, machinery, or knowledge of antiseptic practices, but I think we can all agree that it is often better with these improvements.
So, let's see what people have been up to, in terms of patented tattoo inventions.
First, this is aimed at people who don't think enough about their tattoo art, perhaps: US 12,115,235, Tattoo Ink Formulation and Method. Apparently this consists of glass microspheres, containing organic pigments, that can be destroyed with ultrasound, thus allowing for a much more temporary tattoo. I'd just like to know if they work long term, and what special equipment might be required to use the ink. An intentionally removable tattoo seems like it would defeat the purpose of a permanent personal art form.
For people who really want to see tattooing go high-tech, there is US 12,178,980, Robotic Tattooing Systems and Related Technologies, which allows people to select tattoo designs online, with streamlines payment options. Not high tech enough? The tattoo is then applied via robotic machine! I kind of hate that idea; I researched local tattoo shops and selected an artist with a style I liked, and then we worked together on his unique design. I think this removes some of the artistic value, but maybe there are people who are more interested in a fast process. Also, can I just say? The figure they use for the tattoo--a piggy outline--was a choice.
The proposed little piggy tattoo in question
This next one is a bit more predictable, for improved ink formulations and pigments, and the methods of making them. US 12,195,630 Pigment Ink Dispersions, Tattoo Inks Containing the Pigment Ink Dispersions, and Method of Making the Same, was granted to Mario Barth of Las Vegas. Barth has some interesting pigmentation formulas that mean little to me, but are evidently innovative and new.
Finally, here's an improvement in tattooing equipment: US 12,144,952 Tattoo Machine Assembly. It allows for a more customizable "feel" to the tattoo pen, by providing the use of various thicknesses of coils for springs, which permit different speeds and forces behind the needle. Saturation of pigment is greater due to a slower retraction of the needle after piercing, too. Since some body parts are much more sensitive than others--I noticed that the underside of my arm and closer to the armpit were way worse--this improvement might make the process less painful for some people. (I know one person who does not have a completed circle around her bicep because the inner arm was too much for her.)
Me, not particularly enjoying the process but too excited to care
Any ideas for other tattoo improvements? Maybe some kind of bandage that speeds healing? The wait for it to look good again is tedious.
If you're of a certain age and specific interest--meaning over 35 (mostly) and into nerd stuff--you've likely seen at least one episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While primarily about riffing on exceptionally bad movies, there are interludes with the show's characters. Sometimes, they feature regularly occurring bits, like the invention exchange. This bit was most common in the earlier seasons with Joel Hodgson.
Of course, none of the inventions are remotely serious, but they do offer a fun way to investigate the aspects of patentability.
Patentability is, at its most basic, whether or not an invention is eligible for a patent. And, again at a basic level, patentability is determined by three qualities: new, useful, and non-obvious. There are other rules, like nothing that would be better categorized as another kind of IP, nothing illegal or "offensive to public morality", no natural phenomena, or laws of nature. But we can typically stick to the three qualifications here.
New: it can't be something previously disclosed. So if you invent a new machine, and then publish an article about its details, share them on social media, or make them available at a conference, it's not new. Keep you inventions secret! Also, if you spill the secrets or someone comes up with the same/similar concept and files for a patent first, it's not patentable, because patents are granted to the first to file.
Useful: is must have a purpose. The purpose does not need to further humankind of advance technology, it can include fun or novelty. So perpetual motion machines are out, but a scuba diving kit modified for a dog isn't.
Non-obvious: it can't be obvious. That means that a "person with ordinary skill in the art" (the technical term for a person familiar with the field of the invention, or who works in that field) could not have immediately or easily conceived of the idea. Basic improvements or simple changes to previous inventions are therefore not patentable, but an alteration that makes a significant difference in its function would be.
With those defined, let's look at an invention exchange and comment on their patentability!
Ok, we have an air freshener mobile and a baby teether/Alien face hugger. I'd say that both may once have been patentable. Why? The air freshener mobile has, to the best of my knowledge, not been created before this; unfortunately if neither character applied for a patent it's too old now. It's also very useful! Babies make lots of stinky smells and mobiles are a common baby product. And it definitely isn't obvious, because it's just a little too weird to be obvious. As for the teether/face hugger, that meets the same new (at the time) requirement. It is also very useful because it's good for baby and very entertaining for adults, meeting at least the novelty standard. Finally, it's obvious, in my opinion, but again probably because it's just so weird.
Let's do another!
The "Chinderwear" is maybe patentable, but wouldn't be a strong patent. Ignoring the fact that none of these count as new anymore (which I will from here on out), it may not be considered useful. Why? Because the chin butt isn't something people typically want to cover. As for non-obvious, if we really considered cleft chins as butts, it would be too obvious. So the usefulness of the invention negates its non-obviousness. The Rat Pack chess set falls prey to a rule that isn't covered by the three basics above. Using name, image, or likeness of a person requires direct authorization if they're living; for a deceased person, if it is already being used in other intellectual property (I will assume that's the case for such well-known people) then it's already owned and would also require some kind of permission. Furthermore, it's a little obvious. This isn't a strong case of being too obvious, but the change to the chess set is so simple that it may be marketable but not patentable.
One more?
This clip inspired this post, so I had to include it. The super schnozz isn't patentable because, as was pointed out by Joel and the robots, it's not useful. At all! I don't think it could even count for novelty. Perhaps it could claim a design patent, but not utility. It's also kind of obvious, because it's just a big nose, and that's an obvious thing to make. The same problems plague the big head: not useful, pretty obvious. I'm sure someone has before decided to make a big head, maybe for one of those giant foam hats, so it probably isn't new, either. Stick to the baby items, gentlemen.
Yes, I was feeling a bit silly when I came up with this topic. And as it's almost winter recess, it's a good time to be silly.
I've been a very bad blogger lately. I apologize. However, things have been very busy for both the PTRC and other aspects of my job, so I hope you'll forgive me in the interest of enjoying the fruits of those labors.
Meanwhile, here's a post I've been planning for some time but just haven't gotten around to composing.
A Kelley Center student worker from Kazakhstan visited home over summer break and returned with a gift for my boss and I: a national chocolate bar. It was extremely delicious and unfortunately has not reproduced itself.
As I was eating it, I happened to notice that it had a trademarked name, and that piqued my interest. After all, I know nothing about trademarks from Kazakhstan! And it's always fun to look up a trademark, especially for a particularly attractive design. The striking packaging is based on the country's flag.
Chocolate of Kazakhstan! Famous and delicious
The brand appears to be Paxat, and I'd like to find a registration for this specific appearance--the font and oval around it.
Detail of the brand logo and some other regulatory stuff
I'd also like to try and find something that matches some of these other decorative elements, since they have a registration mark next to them; but I am uncertain if they are just for the name that included or the whole image.
This design motif is one of the parts based on the flag of Kazakhstan, along with the sun and eagle
I found two registrations that appear to match, but neither of them are for a logo or image, just a brand name. Also, one is entirely in Russian and I can't read it, so I must be forced to assume that it matches... It is the right name and is from Kazakhstan, so it seems legit. The other is in English, partially, and has some unrelated goods and services, but it does include among them candies.
I made a point to look up the Article 6ter Kazakhstan entries--those are basically indicators for states. Read more about them here. For your reference, here's a screenshot of the entry in the 6ter database for the flag:
Article 6ter Database results
Think you can do a better job of finding the trademark? I used WIPO's Global Brand Database. Let me know if you have more success and what you used to find your info!
Some of you may recall how much I love shoes. And some of you may have met me in person, and may know I love shoes from my attire. For those of you who are unaware, I really enjoy shoes.
Unfortunately, I tend to enjoy fun high heeled shoes the most, and occasionally life demands that I must dress "practically", which tends to mean athletic shoes or sensible flats. I wear flats into and out of the office, simply because I know that the nearly mile walk to and from my parking would be disastrous on my heels. I've seen the damage asphalt can cause and rough, broken asphalt is a quick way to to break a heel completely. But what about other times? If a dress code says "sensible" or some other similar, disappointing term?
Last week, in response to my disappointment with an event's sensible dress code suggestion, a coworker joked that she was surprised I didn't have"off-roading" heels. I had that concept stuck in my mind all weekend, and finally did the librarian thing and started searching for some kind of matching concept.
Allow me to explain how shocked I was that among the first set of results was the page for Sneex. Which kind of fit the bill. (Visit the site to understand.)
Now, I had not heard of these on their initial release; despite my love of shoes, I don't really care to follow fashion news closely. That's probably because I know what I like and it isn't always fashionable... like Sneex. I really like these shoes, even though most of the internet seems to think they're a crime against footwear, stilettos and sneakers both.
But what do these have to do with this blog?
Well, I'm sure you can only imagine my delight when I noticed the product description:
I love shoe patents
That's right, a patented design! Oh, what joy! Shoe patents!
They have 22 design patents, and most look remarkably similar. I won't list all of them or insert all of them here, but here's a taste:
