Fake Nails, Real IP

I've always enjoyed painting my nails, having fun colors and glitter enhance the ends of my fingers. However, as an adult, I find that this doesn't work well with my habits (gardening) or requirements (cleaning and other grown-up chores). I was beginning to think I was doomed to the semi-permanent dirt manicure and never using my hands for Instagram modeling*, until I started seeing more fake nails. Press-on nails you can apply at home. 

It strikes me sometimes that I am just an adult still playing dress-up, but the accessories are more expensive

Oh yes, in addition to being a fancy shoe person, I am now a press-on nail person.

But imagine my secondary delight at learning how much IP is involved! The trademark aspects should be immediately obvious; any brand worth its salt will almost certainly have pursued at least one registration/indication avenue to protect brands. 

It was the claim to patented technology that captured my attention. What could be patented? How the nails are made? The glue included in the kit? Their special formula to make them last longer? I had to know, and also if there were some brands with more patents that others! 

Heck yeah, IP

Now, one brand makes this too easy. Kiss has a webpage dedicated to their patents. It's unfortunate, because that takes out most of the challenge of learning if they have design or utility patents and what parts of the process they're for--nails, glue, etc. So I'm going to have my fun searching for patents by specifically excluding Kiss.

I quickly found, unsurprisingly, that there would be some struggle differentiating nail as in fingernail from nail as in the thing you hit with a hammer. I tried to control for this by requiring the presence of finger but found that might not be enough. Evidently, we are 3D printing more organs than I thought.  

I worked up to  ((((nail AND finger)OR fingernail) WITH artificial) AND manicure)NOT "Kiss Nail Products" but felt that was a little too specific, with only 92 results returned. (((nails AND finger) OR fingernail)WITH artificial) NOT "Kiss Nail Products" was a little better, with 661 results, yet it still had a lot of random results that were due to the weak relevance rankings and lack of natural language searching in Patent Public Search. 

Seriously, PPUBS? The one time I don't look for contact lenses...

Nonetheless, let's take a look at some recent fake nail technology granted patents in the US!

1.  Incidentally also the first on my results list... US 12,501,984: Artificial nail tip and curing composition set and applying method thereof. This is some higher-level tech, more likely to be found in a salon than at home so I won't likely use it myself. It's for artificial nail "extensions", and the glue and curing procedure for hardening and adhering them. If you want to do more detailed or challenging nail art, this is the kind of fake nail you'd use.
2.  Perhaps my favorite of the batch is US 12,161,211: Soluble 3D printed custom artificial nails designed through a mobile application. An independent inventor owns it, and it would be perfect for me! I could have any nail style created to perfectly fit my nails, all using an app. I can only hope this person implements or has implemented the patent. 
3.  A close second to the above is US 12,411,999: Customized artificial fingernail generation systems. The only reason it ranks lower? No app and it isn't an independent inventor. Otherwise, it is also a method for creating the perfect fake nails! Honestly, I'm excited to have a system make the perfect nail set for me. Maybe it will be this one. 
4. Honorable mention! US 11,327,565: Nail manicure tips for enabling use of a touchscreen device, and method therefore. Evidently these two Texans did not like that they couldn't use their phone while trying to remove nail polish. So while it isn't quite for fake nails, it is related to the decoration (or un-decoration) of nails. I can't say I've ever been so anxious to use my phone that I couldn't manage the wait time to remove nail polish but maybe they're using something different. Who knows; this is just the kind of innovation I like to highlight when teaching people about patents. See a problem? Solve it and own your solution. 

 

Well, now we all know a little more about how to get some press on nails in the future! Hopefully...

 

*follow us! @fondrenlibrary 

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:

Squishy Patents: Of Squishmallows and Squishables

In a previous post about plushes (Squishmallows vs. Squishables), I mentioned a potential future post investigating design patents for different squishes belonging to the parent companies.

It turned out to be a far more difficult task than anticipated. 

In true librarian fashion, I was looking forward to some really complex search queries in Patent Public Search. For example:

((kelly WITH toys).as. OR jazwares.as.) AND plush AND D$.pn.

Unfortunately, that's not how things worked. I was forced to simplify my query multiple times and still had zero results. I resorted to searching "squishable" and "squishmallow". This was in no small part because the parent companies did not have any patents, or, in the case of Jazwares (Squishmallows), useless unrelated properties. [Although one might argue that this patent for a social media system could be related to their Squishmallows marketing.] 

This dog thing in patent D634,373 from Jazwares terrifies me

Somehow, these results were even more baffling. The only patents that reference Squishables or Squishmallows are owned by other entities. And they don't directly refer to the patented designs by the product names; those appear in the "other publications" section. 

In the case of Squishmallows, when you visit the current version of the website referenced by patent D994,050 or D995,661, the plushes shown are genuine Squishmallows. You can see the tags with the registered Squishmallow brand name.

The Morey Organization, assignee to patents D994,050 and D995,661, created a design based on Squishmallows and then cited that brand's plush (sold by a similar group). These two birds are much more articulated than most Squishmallows--significantly, legs attached to feet, not just pseudopod-like appendages--and have Morey Organization stitching, which makes them patentably unique, perhaps.

Bird squish, non-mallow

In the case of Squishables, the patents are similarly for products from non-Squishable entities that cite genuine Squishables (maybe?) in the "other publications". I've mentioned Ontel products before (see the cat inventions post) and I know they aren't associated with the Squishable brand. The critters in patents D855,708 and D857,122 have features not seen in Squishables (the same zipper on the back noticed in the cat post). 

But why does it have a zipper?!

To me, these patents aren't just squishy in terms of the items. They feel intellectually and commercially squishy.

It seems as though Squishables and Squishmallows have neglected to patent any of their designs. Perhaps it is why both lines seem to have several similar plushes, and so many more similar products seem to exist.

However, I think I can tell the difference between the brands; and at the very least I know there are various brands.

The End of Paper Plant Patents

Apparently, we have received the last of the paper copies of plant patents.* While a part of me is sad--looking through pictures of new plants was always entertaining--I understand the reasons for it. Paper copy distribution is expensive, uses resources, and the copies take up space in depository libraries/PTRCs.

Loyal readers and fellow plant patent fans are likely asking, "But how will we see the important color images of patented plants?" After all, the images included in Patent Public Search and therefore all other patent search tools and databases are grayscale and low quality.

Fortunately, you can still find color images of plant patents using Patent Center.

Unfortunately, you have to know the number of the plant patent you want to see in advance, and it only goes as far back as about 2007. I've also found this works with some Internet browsers (Chrome) and not others (Firefox).

Here's a brief tutorial plus images for finding the color images we all crave.

1. Search for a patented plant in Patent Public Search (please see other entries or resources for help with that) or another tool of your choice.
2. Once you find the patented plant desired, post 2007ish, make a note of the patent number.
   
3. On the home page of the USPTO, hover your mouse cursor over the Find It Fast menu and then select Patent Center (first listing).
   
4. OPTIONAL: Log into Patent Center with your USPTO account. This is not necessary, but if you have one, why not? 
5. On the home page, select Patents # from the drop down menu next to the search bar.
   
   
6. Enter the patented plant number, complete with PP prefix, and click the search button (magnifying glass icon) or use the Enter key.
   
7. The patented plant's page will open to its Application Data. Using the menu on the left side, select Supplemental Content.
   
8. On that page there will be an option to download JPEGs and PDFs or just preview a PDF.
   
9. Voila! You have found color images of plant patents, and all future patented plants should be findable here, too.
   

So, while it isn't as fun as having stacks of new plants to look through, and the quality of a scanned photo is never as good as an original print, at least we have something.

 

*I say "apparently" because immediately following the official announcement that April 18th would be the last issue date, more paper copies were issued. Clarification should be forthcoming...

My AI Replacement: Coming Soon?

Given the massive amount of attention OpenAI’s new chatbot, ChatGPT, has received (especially as a harbinger of the imminent AI takeover), I thought I'd test its performance as a PTRC representative. So, I spent a recent rainy afternoon formulating questions and interrogating ChatGPT's abilities. I was relieved to find my immediate replacement is not likely, but I should still watch my back.

ChatGPT generated fairly accurate, if brief, instructions on how to search for patents on Espacenet, with or without a given topic. 

Basic steps for searching with Espacenet

However, it has not yet learned about the USPTO’s Patent Public Search. When I asked for Patent Public Search Advanced instructions, I was directed to the WIPO. Though the instructions seemed fine, PATENTSCOPE and Patent Public Search were both misidentified.

Instructions for WIPO, not USPTO

I rephrased the question to stipulate a USPTO search tool, and was extremely reassured to find ChatGPT still thought PatFT and AppFT were available. I have a year's advancement beyond the AI. Of course, I took a moment to provide feedback and inform OpenAI that the answer was incorrect.

Wrong tools, right agency

ChatGPT is completely incapable of performing a patent search. When I requested both general and more specific patent searches, it responded with an unequivocal “No!” (if in more polite terms). Even when asked to find basic information on granted patents or patent data, like how many patents were issued to Rice University in 2022 (17), it could not answer.

CharGPT cannot provide patent data

I followed up with an easier search, asking for the grocery store nearest to Rice University, which caused several errors. Later, it managed to locate a Randalls—with the exact same address as Rice.

This is gratifying. I’ve been telling people for years that the searching abilities of librarians are irreplaceable, and AI has a very long way to go before it can try.

Following that, I changed topics, and asked general and specific questions about trademarks. I was surprised when ChatGPT immediately provided instructions for obtaining a trademark in Togo, the smallest country that first came to mind. Other basic questions, such as “Does Rice University have trademarks?” were also easily answered.

How to obtain a trademark in Togo

Questions about specific entities, trademarks, searching, or data were not possible. ChatGPT could not tell me what Rice’s first trademark was, or how many trademarks Rice University’s athletics department has. I anticipated as much from roughly similar types of patent queries.

ChatGPT is also uncertain about trademark data

Lawyers may be in bigger trouble than librarians. ChatGPT generated two fairly plausible examples of a patent content, one using its own example and one using mine. They were incomplete, and included substantial warnings about relying on an AI and the advisability of seeking legal counsel, but still composed some sections. I imagine an inventor could input enough information about a real innovation and receive a fairly helpful set of claims or descriptions.

The first part of an example patent document

Warning provided for all patent document examples

Next I asked for trademark applications, first with no information beyond brand name, and then with additional details like product and business location. The more details provided, the better the application--to an extent. The content was very generic and left many blank spaces to be filled, but it managed to correctly classify the product (athletic shoes, 25).

Example trademark application with less information

Example trademark application with more information

ChatGPT noticeably didn’t make any distinctions in application content for any IP office, and definitely did not consider type of mark or mark specifications. Again, similar to patents, it produced something that could guide a person struggling to write a trademark application.

I’ll keep an eye on it, though, and let everyone know when I’m being replaced by an online, open-source AI chatbot.