Flowbee: As Seen on TV (in 1989)

In a recent conversation with my husband, I mentioned that I needed to give some of my plants a "haircut", but I wasn't sure how to accomplish it. He facetiously recommended I use a Flowbee, and I responded with something along the lines of "Duh whuh?"

He proceeded to try to explain the concept of some kind of vacuum cleaner hair cutter device to me, without the aid of visuals, in a rare moment we were both without our phones. Very little was clarified except that it was fairly well known in the 1980s, mostly through TV advertisements. 

Later, once we were again fully plugged in and had phones available, he showed me a few YouTube videos--including this one I can't embed--that made sense of things, including some 80s and 90s hairstyles. Equipped with a better understanding of a Flowbee, I finally got the joke. But my mind was, of course, drawn to speculating on its IP.

The vacuum hair hero; image taken from flowbee.com

Despite my husband's immediate assurances, I wondered if it was patented.

Turns out, the guy behind the Flowbee™ has his IP locked down.

I'm telling you, not even Rice is this careful about international coverage. 

Yes, it also has trademarks, and this is the official specimen on record

Rick Hunts, the inventor of the Flowbee™, obtained his initial patent for "Hair Clipper" in 14 different jurisdictions, likely through this WIPO patent application. The patent was granted in at least 7 of those, including Germany (twice, potentially reflecting the geopolitical status in the 1980s), Australia, Canada, and the European Union. The US Patent for the Hair Clipper, US 4,679,322, was granted in July of 1987... shortly before I was born. 

There are a few other Flowbee™-related patents that were filed and granted later. These, I presume, are for improvements or new accoutrements, judging by the names "Grooming Attachment for Vacuum-Drawn Clippers", "Vacuum-Drawn Hair Clipper", and "Vacuum-Powered Hair Cutting Guide". All were filed within a few years after the initial hair clipper, but seemingly only in the US. Who knew a vacuum-enabled hair clipper could have so many improvements?

Hunts also owns a design patent in the US for the "Vacuum Cleaner Hose Attachment", D311,616. 

Apparently a distinct ornamental design

Today, all of the Flowbee™ patents have expired, so it's possible there are many versions available. 

And, as it turns out, I could have used one adapted for plants, because my pruning was a mess.

Eclipsing the Sun and Moon on Earth

I could look up some IP for anything directly related to the solar eclipse, or maybe even a lunar eclipse, but I've already done that for a display (go look at it), so to keep things fresh, let's look at plant patents.

You know, for plants with lunar or solar eclipse, or just eclipse, in the name. 

That's relevant, right?

Whatever, plant patents are cool, and I feel like I don't get enough opportunities to include them. 

Let's start with the most relevant first:

Heucherella plant named 'Solar Eclipse', PP23,647. Presumably it is named because the pattern of variegation is a lighter green outline of the leaf with an inner darker red, like the corona of the sun showing around the edges of the moon.

It would be more accurate if the variegation was a much darker red

Baptista plant called 'Lunar Eclipse', PP25,875. I don't know exactly what part of this plant is meant to evoke a lunar eclipse, but maybe you can look at the picture and tell me. It's certainly a pretty plant.

What nice flowers.

Veronica plant named 'Total Eclipse', PP18,912. I selected this one as more relevant because we're about to have a total solar eclipse. Or at least some of us are, most of us will have to make do with looking at neat shadows.

Are you a Heather? No, I'm a Veronica.

After that, the other plants are mostly just named 'Eclipse' or some kind of color plus eclipse. I liked these the most:

Hosta plant named 'Eclipse', PP24,625. Like the above baptista, it also has pretty flowers, which I clearly seem to favor over simple leafy plants.

Wheeeeee more flowers

Saintpaulia plant named 'Eclipse', PP10,103. This one has fun floral variegation, which may mean the inspiration for its name is similar to the heucherella above.

The digital discoloration of this photo is why we used to receive paper copies

Blackberry plant named 'Eclipse', PP30,448. No idea where they got eclipse for this one, they're blackberries that look normal and so does the plant. Maybe there's a whole line of astronomical berries?

I love berry season, I should get some blackberries tomorrow

And those are the best eclipsing plant patents! If you're in the area on Monday, April 8th, visit Fondren's eclipse viewing event. I won't be able to make it--it's time for the annual PTRCP Training Seminar.

Royal IP

There's been a lot in the media recently about Kate Middleton, Duchess and Princess of various locations (I could look it up but I don't want internet algorithms deciding I'm interested in royal family gossip). But did you know about Princess Kate IP?

If so, you shouldn't believe it belongs to her. A trademark--specifically a wordmark--was filed for "Princess Kate" in Nov. 2010 by Nieves & Nieves LLC. This New York-based company was seeking to sell various goods (including perfume, fashion accessories, and bedding) with that name, despite no connection to one very famous Princess Kate.

Although the filings denied that there was any implied connection to Kate Middleton, it is almost impossible to hear the phrase Princess Kate and not think of Kate Middleton, wife to Prince William. They're international celebrities and members of one of the few remaining European royal families.

Evidently, trademark examiners of the USPTO felt that was a significant enough issue to make the mark potentially misleading, and that it identified a living person who did not consent to its use. I imagine that Kate Middleton, had she been aware of the mark, would also have objected to its use. 

It's Cambridge, I think I did actually know that

No approval? No live peoples' names!

The final dismissal, after numerous appeals, was made by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in April of 2014. The company in question also failed to file a required brief within the permitted time window. Perhaps they chose to give up, rather than keep fighting this battle.

You can find all of the relevant files and information on the dead "Princess Kate" mark at this TSDR link. And while it isn't as interesting to conspiracy theorists and scandal rags, I think it's a very interesting IP/trademark case that illustrates an intent to deceive fairly well.

Triple Dog IP Dare

You know, I spend a lot of time thinking about IP, even outside working hours. It's a side effect of not only my position, but this blog. Because I've made a point to investigate aspects of IP that are more likely to apply to an average person's life, or perhaps spark some interest in a person who isn't concerned with the technical side of things, I now find that I can't stop myself from considering IP. After all, who knows when I might be able to pick up a topic that will make for a good blog post, or perhaps lead to some exciting search possibilities?

Unfortunately, that means a lot of people around me have to think about IP more than they might like, too. 

It's a hazard of the occupation, and I'm sure it's not unique to this one, either. 

Recently, it was during one of the involuntary, impromptu, work-unrelated IP moments that I had a small, yet terrifying epiphany.

IP is everywhere and concerns everything in our lives. It can be applied to everything. You cannot escape the presence of IP!

Try me, I dare you. You name it in a comment, and I'll show you some relevant IP. In fact, I triple dog dare you. There's no going back from that.

Spring Snow Machines

It's spring break, and many Americans enjoy spring skiing. Yet, thanks to climate change (or even uncooperative weather), sometimes there isn't enough snow on the slopes.

What happens in those cases?

We make snow!

Well, the ski slope managers do, not us. And they use machines to do it, because most of us do not have god-level powers. 

Let's check out how the technology has evolved over the decades. We're focused those that create a snow similar to actual snowfall, not on those that rely on ice, creating snow more suitable for a snow cone than skiing (I'm looking at you, US 9,909,796).

The first examples I found (US patents only) were patented in the 1950s. US 2,676,471, granted in 1954, claimed to make sufficient quantities for ski trails and other winter sports. The Connecticut-based inventor was potentially motivated by distressing ski season in 1948, '49, and '50, all cited in the patent.

Ah, the days of patent figures that were more artistic than technical

US 3,838,815 of 1974 innovated a machine that did not require compressed air, considerably minimizing the weight and energy usage of a snow machine. Therefore, snow making was more efficient, effective, and inexpensive. Probably a good thing all-around, since high use of energy and water really only makes the original problem--lack of precipitation--worse. 

It looks like plumbing to me

By 1992, inventors were more interested in improving side effects, as snow machinery had sufficiently advanced beyond efficiency concerns. US 5,167,367 is for a ducted-fan snow making apparatus that features a reduced noise level. Various contemporary patented machines had noise levels in the 70-100 decibel range, depending on whether they were ducted-fan or compressed air models. Depending on settings and distance from the fan, this model claims to max out at 82 decibels. 

Besides, this thing just looks kinda cool

After another decade or so, snow makers were turning into entire plants. Inventors were automating their control, such as 2015's US 9,200,825: Control system for an artificial snow making plant. The system is intended for a plant that has multiple snow making apparatuses across ski runs. It's mostly for programming and communications technology, rather than snow making, but still belongs here since one little snow machine can't fix an entire broken climate!

Finally, within the last couple years, inventors were completely automating the process and freeing it from fixed electrical infrastructures. US 11,466,915 can run on battery power, but also designed to use extant electrical systems. It's also compatible with wireless systems. Versatility is now key, since power is expensive and it's time to start thinking about energy expenditures when working against climate change.

Technology to the ski slope rescue!

Another interesting related patent, albeit kind of gross sounding in my opinion, is this artificial snow and artificial ski areas invention, US 7,998,566. It relies on snow "composed of a solid lubricant compounds and resin grains" and the solid lubricant compound consists of ingredients like paraffin, polyethylene ester, polypropylene ester, polyurethane grains, and/or talcum powder. For those of you who did not grow up in a petrochemicals and plastics family, that means this snow is made from plastic and oil-based granules. It sounds so slimy and completely unlike snow. But it doesn't require water or cooling agents! And it isn't restricted to appropriate seasons or temperatures! (Puke emoji)

Cheese Doodle Day!

As it is evidently Cheese Doodle Day today (March 5th), a post about some cheese doodle/curl IP seems appropriate. This could be an easy, minimally-researched post, too, if I relied upon Cheetos. But I won't cheet (ha, ha) you like that. I'll give you a fully-researched product!

However, I want to first acknowledge at least one Cheetos trademark, because it would be remiss of me to completely skip the most famous of cheesy puff snacks. Here's one of the trademarks for the illustrated form of the name Cheetos, owned by Frito-Lay, registration no. 2680627. Did you know that name was first used in commerce in 1948?

Mmm, delicious corn product coated in orange powdered cheese product

Obviously there are many more cheese curls on the market, varying in quality and deliciousness. One such example are the Bon Ton Cheese Curlies, word mark, registration no. 1955350. I don't know this brand, but they are one of the first results when you search the USPTO's database for cheese curls.

Please note this product's very distinct monkey mascot clearly not based on another cheesy snack

But don't forget your pseudo marks! Cheez Doodles, word mark, registration no. 644839, very specifically lists cheese flavored corn curls as its associated good, whereas Bon Ton Cheese Curlies are for the broader corn based snack foods, and Cheetos are for the slightly more detailed corn-based snack foods, namely, puffed corn snacks. It's interesting those two don't mention cheese; perhaps it is to allow some wiggle room for additional flavoring options. 

25 cents?! These must be a cheeper (ha, ha, sorry) and lower quality variety

What about other forms of IP? I bet there are many copyrights for packaging design. After all, that can fall under the purview of copyright rather than trademark or design patents. 

Nonetheless, I think patents would be more interesting. We got to look at some packaging above in the format of specimens, and the copyright registration database doesn't come with images or examples. Also, it sounds like it might be a challenge to search for cheese curl technology without relying on a brand name, and if anyone loves a challenging search, it's a librarian. 

In case you're curious, my search query in Patent Public Search was (chee$2 adj (curl OR doodle or snack or p$2ff?) and corn) not cheek?. Fairly successful, not perfect. The best results are...

US 4,517,204: Reduced calorie puffed snack food products

US 11,589,595: Cheese toppings for baked snacks suitable for prebake application

 

US D609,878: Curved cracker

None of them are quite perfect, like I said, but there's definitely one that might apply to a reduced calorie Cheeto, and the other two certainly cite cheese puffs or cheese doodles.

Hooray for cheesy snack IP!

BONUS! Finger sheath patent--which specifically calls out cheese puffs:

A Squishy IP Reprise

Well, I somehow ended up with two Squishes in my office. One is a Squishmallow, and the other is a Squishable.

I cleared some space on a chair for them

Also, when I said "somehow", I should clarify that I intentionally purchased the pickle Squishmallow for my office, because clearly no office is complete without a pickle plush.

I think the best part is that the Squishable is actually the ~Mysterious Doctor Plague~ who had a featured trademark appearance in my previous entry. I received him as a gift for Valentine's Day, my husband completely unaware that my blog had focused on that particular bit of IP. (If you're wondering why I got a plague doctor Squishable for Valentine's Day, it's because St. Valentine is the patron saint of plagues, along with beekeeping and epilepsy. So he gave me a plague doctor, a bag of Bit o' Honey, and conceded that he couldn't figure anything out for epilepsy.) 

Squishily mysterious!

I was not incorrect about some of my suppositions when it came to differentiating the two. The Squishmallow is not as articulated, and has a more velvety texture than a fake fur, like the Doctor Plague. Otherwise, the best indicator might just be knowing your brands and checking those marks!

Anyway, enjoy these close-up views of trademarks and their registration symbols, all from residents of my office.

If the Shoe Fits, IP It

Shoes are amazing. I mean, I really like shoes. I am a shoe person. If you work in Fondren, chances are you've noticed some of my (very impractical) shoes.

Just in case you were wondering about today's pair

In light of that, I cannot believe I've hardly spent any time on shoe IP! 

But, I attended a talk at the Rice Business school with Stuart Weitzman recently (I didn't win the raffle for custom boots and am still feeling pain), and it really inspired me to think about shoe IP. I even asked Mr. Weitzman about his IP, wondering if it was challenging to register his personal name for a trademark. He said it was no problem--which I didn't expect, but then, there probably weren't a lot of Stuart Weitzmans trying to register their names for fancy shoes. 

The thing is, I recall just staring into the window the the Stuart Weitzman store in the Galleria, ogling those shoes, when I was younger. It was the kind of store I didn't even have an excuse to go into, so I just stood outside and lusted after the display shoes, which were beyond impractical for a 13 year old. At the time, I was just coming into my unique shoe tendencies, which were inspired in no small part by the fact that I attended a uniformed school, where we had to wear tennis shoes most days and "dress" shoes on dress days. The "dress" shoes were (for some unfathomable reason) Doc Martens, and every single girl in my grade always managed to have the exact same style of New Balances. But then I discovered that some athletic shoes also came with metallic striped colors. And Vans released a style that turned (in my case) pink in the sun. Once I found out I didn't have to wear plain athletic shoes to meet the standards of a uniform, my life's work of finding unique shoes began. Athletic shoes in pink suede with faux fur? Check. Throwback Roos complete with zippered pocket and neon colors? Check. Buckled mules with wooden soles? Check. My grandmother's vintage Uggs (about four sizes too large), before they got popular years later? Check. Bright orange patent leather flat platforms? Check. High heels on sparkly flip flops? CHECK!

As an adult, the world of shoes only grew wider. And in celebration of how much fun shoes are, and how they can come in any imaginable variety today thanks to designers like Stuart Weitzman, let's explore some IP.

We really must start with Mr. Weitzman's trademark, since it inspired this whole entry. Now, there are many registered marks under that name, for a variety of goods and services. But what we want most are shoe-related marks. A number are the word mark Stuart Weitzman, for "retail store services featuring shoes" and etc. Like, 3 live ones: 2749908, 5110490, and 4971730. The trademark registration number for just shoes as a good is 1386002, dating back to 1985. 

Two others stand out to me a little more. The first (registration no. 2571208) is for the word mark phrase "A LITTLE OBSESSED WITH SHOES", which is from an early advertising campaign that was brought up during his talk. It worked brilliantly, because it was a clever strategy to spread brand familiarity and even loyalty, rather than just a shoe. Unfortunately, I can't find an image from the earliest of these, but I have shared below the images used as specimens in the TSDR.

I understand this one not at all

But note the bottom left: a little obsessed with shoes

Secondly, there's the registration for the architectural design of his stores. Apparently, this unique look by the famous Zaha Hadid helped him achieve new markets. It's also a good reminder that IP goes beyond logos and brand names, and into the overall branding strategy. 3797782 is for trade dress, a niche sort of service mark. 

A registered retail store appearance

I hope Mr. Weitzman forgives me for my poorly worded question, and for drooling on his store's windows decades ago. 

Luxury shoes aren't just for women or high fashion. Probably the most iconic, recognizable shoe today is an Air Jordan. It is equally acceptable for a man to collect and covet shoes when it comes to this brand, whereas one might otherwise (at least in certain age and social groups) face some scrutiny or censure. 

The currently active word mark "Air Jordan" was first registered in 1985, no. 1370283. It does not claim any color, style, etc., just the characters, and is for footwear and athletic clothing. Michael Jordan might have been long remembered for his basketball career, but this brand (actually owned by Nike) has made him truly immortal. 

Who doesn't know this?

My first thoughts when I think of the brand are of the jumping silhouette imposed on the words Air Jordan, but surprisingly that is not a registered mark and never was. Issued serial no. 74041037 in 1990, this combo word and design trademark was marked abandoned and finally invalidated in Nov. 1994.

I don't know this

I clearly don't keep up with this brand, since they've been using registration no. 3725535 trademark design since 2009. It's incomprehensible to me, unless they're trying to move away from Michael Jordan as a person. Those jumps were famous. Perhaps with time, they assume that reputation has faded, or that the Nike swoosh (too many registrations to list) is branding enough. Or perhaps they just want to use it without having to manage it as a trademark, since it still shows up in a substantial number of their specimen photos.

Why yes, they did select something out of date for a specimen

In my defense, their specimen for the word mark has the silhouette, and so does the small icon on the Wikipedia brief. So there.

Why would they abandon this? To move away from the Jordan person?

Want another shocking piece of shoe trademark info? Louboutin (a brand of shoe as swoon-worthy as Stuart Weitzman's) does not own that specific color of red as applied to the sole of a shoe. At least, not in the U.S. You can see on the TSDR record that it is registered in France. 

I'd like to move away from trademarks, though, and look at a few design patents. Mr. Weitzman mentioned design patents when I asked my (poorly phrased) question. He seemed dismissive, but I notice a few brands rely quite heavily on them.

First, Nike was probably the frequent assignee I found in my search. Here's an example of one that might relate to Air Jordans, US D1,004,270.

Could be Air Jordans, or it could just be citing them

Another designer name I notices, if not as often as Nike, was J. Choo. Jimmy Choo makes some very nice shoes; that's a brand up there with Weitzman and the likes of Louboutin. Even Terry Pratchett knows they're good shoes (if ever an author wrote some great librarians, it was Sir Pratchett--and I don't just mean The Librarian). This is a fancy shoe. To see the color version of the photo, visit this link.

Almost has a early 1900s feel

And finally, because not everything in life is about fancy shoes, here's a patented Crocs design. I've never owned a pair of Crocs, but I'm aware of their popularity, and that everyone wants to copy them. This version won't be duped! Thanks, US patent D1,001,431.

Don't copy these

With that, I need to stop looking at shoes. I already went shoe shopping and bought another pair thanks to these recent events. Just remember: if you like the shoe, it doesn't matter if it's fancy or expensive. What matters is if you can wear it and you like it! Fit isn't event that important if they're as good as the pair below, which are so cheap they don't even have a brand.

Too cheap for functional buckles, but still great

Potato Chip Patents!

Have I been on a food patent kick lately?

Possibly. But they really offer an interesting glimpse into how we eat and the nature of mass market foods.

Really, it was Lays that came up in a conversation that sparked this entry, and if they specifically had potato chip patents. Our bet was that yes, they did; I just needed to find some. (I didn't need to look to know they would have copyrights and trademarks.)

As it turns out, Frito-Lay (the owner of Lay's, a division of PepsiCo) has patents not only for creating potato chips, containing them, shaping them, de-oiling them, and frying them, to name just a few, but they also own patents for specific potato cultivars. 

Some of these patents are quite a bit more interesting than others. I'm sure many of you are thinking, "Hannah, you've taught us all that tubers, like potatoes, cannot be patented!" But they can--just not as plant patents. Utility patents for potatoes are possible; they also are possible for genetically altered plants and plants created via sexual reproduction.

Here's one of the more recently granted patents for a potato variety they own: US 10,561,114 Potato Cultivar FL 2512.

Frito-Lay patented the process for creating the unique ridged chips. Here are two of the patents for making the ridges in slightly different formations, US 4,511,586 and 4,508,739:

Opposite corrugations, with different frequencies (or number of wavy dips 'n' ridges)

Opposite phase-shifted corrugations with the same frequency and amplitude, very distinct from above

Later, they moved on to patenting the design; there are several for that, but here's an example, D495,852:

Explicitly and exclusively for the ornamental, non-functional appearance!

There's even a high-amplitude version in a later utility patent, US 9,462,818, because these ridges are EXTREME: 

Note the very different amplitude between the prior art and this patent's version

Batch control using Bang-bang control: I have no idea what it is about or what it means, but the bang-bang control sounds uncontrollable, so US 9,110,462 has the best title. 

BANG BANG seems more like what you call a process that is out of control, but what do I know

Batched control is apparently related to the thickness and hardness of chips, with batch-frying giving a more kettle cooked texture and the continuous cooking being more like commercial Lay's potato chips. Frito-Lay was working on unlocking the secret to continuously cooking a kettle-style chip; get the deets in US 4,863,750. Did they ever achieve it?

This is some serious potato chip science

You know chips like Pringles aren't really just sliced potato, right? Patent 8,632,835 proves it:

The tiny granules in the figure make it pretty clear there's no potato slice

And finally, US 11,535,438, the patent for a specially designed snack container, because we are ever reaching higher in snack containment technology: 

This design certainly wasn't over engineered...

Ugh, thanks to this, I could really go for a chip right now.

Let's Get Cooking

The husband was watching this video on YouTube, and he called my attention to it at 22 seconds, because patents are referenced.

There's nothing wrong with searching patents for recipes, I bet many PTRC librarians have!

My first reaction: "This guy sucks at patent searches! Finding an English version of a Korean patent is super easy. I bet he missed all kinds of results!"

And then I thought that perhaps I should just try it myself, because why not find patented methods for cooking that rely on unusual methods? It sounds like there may be some interesting material out there, and I'd really like to see what the Korean patent is all about anyway.

As it turns out, it's no wonder this YouTuber did not focus much on the Korean patent. It's a very short, Korean issued only patent that barely describes a meat cooking method. The title is actually omitted. So it's not so much that he can't cook in Korean, as it is that he would have just had to pick a method of heating and then some form of flavoring from a list, and then used whatever meat desired. It's an extremely unsatisfying patent for a lot of reasons. 

Exceedingly minimal info on how to cook your meat.

I decided to just look for some meat cooking patents, since general cooking could include a distressingly long list of results. I've searched for food and cookery patents before; if you don't limit ingredients, it's overwhelming. After a few tweaks to my query and organizing the results, I found a few interesting options. 

Many were for meat cooking equipment. I chose not to focus on exclude those, because they aren't really recipes. With that in mind, here are the best (or at least most noteworthy), genuinely patented methods for cooking your meat!

1. Right off the bat I'm breaking my rules with patent 2,636,431: Device for Cooking Meat and Toasting Buns. I had to include it because the bun toasting in the same device caught my attention. Although I can hardly tell what is taking place in the diagrams, I have to assume it isn't just setting the buns on a heated surface. After all, this is a rotisserie for ground meat (???) and the buns are supposed to catch dripping juices (?!?!?!?!) while toasting, but not burning. Read the whole patent and description here.

   

   Toast yer buns!
   

2. Patent 5,662,959 is for steam cooking of meats, which is supposed to prevent the loss of any water or moisture. Everyone is so concerned with retaining juices! I saw a lot of that in the patents. I'm starting to suspect that my own lack of experience with cooking meat--especially on grills--is affecting my perspective. 
3. The Art of Cooking Hams, US 1,214,627: Because some people recognize that when you cook a ham, it isn't just a task, or industry, it's an art. Since I personally dislike ham, I can't really say if this is accurate... But if it's patented, I guess it's plausible. 

   

   How to create culinary art via porcine means
   

4. You're not supposed to ask about the process or ingredients, but someone had to describe it in detail for it to be patented. Read US 3,068,104 Preparation of Sausage at your own risk.
5. This invention is an overly complicated (in my opinion) method of imparting the unique flavor achieved through cooking meat by exposing it to heated wood. It requires one-time use thin sheets of wood. That seems like quite a manufacturing burden, but perhaps when US 2,423,964 was filed, it was not. The diagrams illustrate a surprising breadth of possible variations, too. 

   

   Impart a delicate, woody flavor to your meat
   

6. Need a constant minimum cooking time for a specific kind of animal? Patent 3,908,035 Method of Roasting Meat is a device that provides just such a thing! Select the meat variety, weight, and whether frozen or not, and let it do the rest. You can even view it while cooking.
7. Finally, let's end with some "meat product". Patent 5,322,705 presents a method for creating a highly processed meat product that visually resembles the initial food product, generally meat. Gross!

   

   Oh, goody, now we can all make "meat product"