Anastomosis for treating COPD; Rox Medical, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,016,782

December 6, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,016,782, issued on September 9, 2011 to Rox Medical, Inc. of San Clemente, CA, discloses a method for providing oxygenated blood to venous circulation.

    

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), encompassing chronic bronchitis and emphysema, is a common form of lung disease.  While smoking is the leading cause of COPD, it can also be caused by exposure to certain gases or fumes, exposure to heavy amounts of secondhand smoke and pollution, and frequent use of cooking fire without adequate ventilation.  There is not a cure to COPD, but according to the ’782 patent, the present standard of care is oxygen therapy, by which the patient supplements their breathing with extra oxygen (e.g., from a pressurized gas cylinder).  Such sources of oxygen can be cumbersome, and the ’782 patent discloses a method for providing oxygenated blood to the patient’s venous system by creating an end-to-side anastomosis between the a source of the patient’s oxygenated arterial blood (e.g., artery, aorta, left chamber of the heart) and the patient’s Inferior Vena Cava or Superior Vena Cava.

According to its website, Rox Medical is “an early phase medical device company” that has developed a device that “creates a passage between an artery and a vein in the pelvic region which redirects oxygen rich blood back to the lungs of severe COPD patients.”  The company’s “Anastomotic Coupler System (ACS)” is currently undergoing clinical trials, and is not currently available in the U.S.

To directly infringe a patented method (under 35 U.S.C. 271(a)), an entity must perform all the steps of the patented method, and for claim drafting strategy, it is important to consider who is actually expected to be performing these various steps.  Ideally, if a patentee plans to use its patent to protect its market, the company would prefer to do so by suing its competitors for direct infringement.  For example, a claim to a method of making a particular device would be expected to be infringed by competitors making a device similar or identical to the patentee’s device.  Also, because it is generally easier to prove direct infringement of claims directed to a device, and such claims are expected to be infringed by a company’s competitors, device claims are preferable for a robust patent portfolio, particularly for medical device companies.

However, the claims of the patent may not be written in a way that the competitor is the entity performing all the steps of the patented method.  For example, for methods of using the product, the claims might be written so that the steps are instead performed by the patentee’s customers or potential customers.  To assert such a claim, the patentee would have to sue these customers, which is generally not a palatable option.

There are other theories of infringement that can be used to sue competitors using such claims.  For inducement of infringement (under 35 U.S.C. 271(b)), a competitor must be shown to have actively induced another entity (e.g., the customer) to directly infringe a patent.  For contributory infringement (under 35 U.S.C. 271(c)), the competitor must be shown to have offered to sell, sold, or imported a component that is especially made or adapted for infringing use and that is not suitable for substantial noninfringing use.  These other versions of infringement necessarily require that some entity directly infringe the patent.  They also include other facts that must be proven beyond the requirements of direct infringement, so they are generally less desirable to assert than direct infringement.

The claims of the ’782 patent are all directed to “a method of providing oxygenated blood to the venous circulation of a patient,” and all of the steps of this method are potentially performed by hospitals and surgeons, presumably Rox Medical’s customers.  To sue its competitors for inducement of infringement or contributory infringement, Rox Medical would have to show that direct infringement of the ’782 patent occurred (e.g., by the hospital or surgeon) and that the competitors satisfied the other conditions for these forms of infringement.

According to the USPTO database, Rox Medical has three other U.S. patents, only one of which has device claims that might be directly infringed by a competitor.  The company also has other pending U.S. patent applications, hopefully for the company, for pursuing additional claims that would be directly infringed by the company’s competitors.

Filed under ip, Medical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Laser system with multiple-pass pump beam; Apollo Instruments; U.S. Pat. No. 8,014,433

December 1, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,014,433, issued on September 6, 2011 to Apollo Instruments of Irvine, CA, discloses a laser system with multiple spherical mirrors that pass a pump light beam multiple times between the mirrors.

According to the ’433 patent, the power of a laser beam can be increased by increasing the number of passes of the pump light through the lasing material.  However, in existing systems, the number of passes is limited by the size and number of mirrors used to direct the pump light, as well as the complexity of the mechanical system used to support the many mirrors.  The ’433 patent discloses a system and method that avoids the problems of other systems to direct the pump light through the lasing material many times by using a pair of optically-coupled imaging systems with non-coincident optical axes.   

According to its website, Apollo Instruments manufactures and sells fiber-coupled laser diodes, fiber lasers, and other laser systems that ”press the limit of today’s power and brightness levels together with superior performance.”  The website also explains that with the company’s “superior pumping source, fiber lasers delivering more than 300W in a high quality beam (TEM00) have been conveniently realized.”

The ’433 patent provides a lesson in the value of having a patent attorney prepare a patent application and represent the applicant before the USPTO.  Apollo had first filed a patent application that one of the inventors prepared back in 2005.  The USPTO allows inventors to prepare and file their own application and represent themselves before the USPTO (the Latin phrase is “pro se,” which means “on one’s own behalf”).  However, the USPTO does not relax its rules regarding requirements for such applications.  Even if it wanted to give a break to such pro se applicants, the USPTO is not permitted to apply the patent laws differently to different groups of applicants.  Given the complexity of U.S. patent laws and the potential for destroying the possibility for obtaining patent protection, the aphorism that “a physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient” has a corollary in inventors serving as their own patent attorney/agent.

Upon reviewing Apollo’s first application in 2007, the USPTO found that it did not conform to the various requirements with regard to the information provided and the format in which this information is given.  The application was rejected on a whole series of bases, both substantive and formality-based, and the USPTO noted that “applicant is unfamiliar with patent prosecution procedure” and advised him to seek out the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to prosecute the application.  While the USPTO cannot aid in selecting a particular attorney/agent, it does provide a list on its website: www.uspto.gov.

After receiving this rejection, Apollo Instruments wisely retained a patent attorney, who was able to cure the format issues raised by the USPTO, but he was unable to convince the examiner to withdraw the substantive rejections.  Apollo appeared to be interested in appealing the examiner’s decision to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, but instead decided to file a continuation-in-part application in 2008, which resulted in the ’433 patent.

According to the USPTO database, Apollo Instruments owns seven U.S. patents, including the ’433 patent.

 

Filed under ip, optics, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , ,

Data parsing security system; Security First Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,009,830

November 21, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,009,830, issued on August 30, 2011 to Security First Corp. of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, discloses a cryptographic system for computer security applications.

  

According to the ’830 patent, existing cryptographic systems for computer data are potentially more secure than login/password systems, but they are still susceptable to being compromised.  For example, in public-key systems, a public key is known to everyone and a private key is issued only to the individual user; one key is used for encoding and the other for decoding.   The security of such systems is only maintained as long as the private key remains private.  However, a user might store the private key on a system where the only protection is a login/password, so the actual security is only as good as the login/password security (even if the login/password is biometric data).  In other situations, the user might save the private key on a computer that is subject to periodic archiving or backup, thus creating multiple copies of the private key, increasing the probability of disclosure. 

The ’830 patent discloses a cryptographic security system that is more user-independent, and can be used to support mobile applications.  The system includes parsing, splitting, or separating the data to be secured, either before encryption or after, and both the parsing and the encryption can be repeated multiple times.  The parsed and encrypted portions are transmitted separately to the remote locations, where the data can be restored once they are received.

 According to its website, Security First’s “SecureParser® based solutions provide a homogeneous way to protect and control access to all data, whether at rest or in motion across heterogeneous systems.”  One area in which Security First’s technology can be used is in cloud computing.  The website goes on to explain that its patented technique of using cryptographic splitting “fundamentally transforms security by making data protection, integrity, and availability inherent in the data itself for as long as it exists,” and “provides a transformation of the data that is completely transparent to the user and user applications, and can be seamlessly applied throughout the enterprise.” 

Recently, Security First and IBM announced a joint development agreement under which the two companies “will combine Security First’s patented cryptographic data-splitting technology with the highly parallelized hardware acceleration capabilities of IBM’s wire speed processor technology.”  The agreement is “aimed at delivering increased performance, security, and high data availability to storage and cloud-based computing customers.” 

 According to the USPTO database, Security First owns six U.S. patents, including the ’830 patent.

Filed under Computers, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Connector for high-definition multimedia systems; Luxi Electronics Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,002,572

November 15, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,002,572, issued on August 23, 2011 to Luxi Electronics Corp. of Irvine, CA, discloses an electrical connector for high definition multimedia interface (HDMI) systems.

    

According to the ’572 patent, installation of HDMI cables with existing male cable connectors or plugs requires separating the many cable wires (e.g., 19) from one another and preparing each one for soldering or crimping to the corresponding terminal of the cable connector.  This labor-intensive installation results in reduced productivity and reliability.  Also, HDMI cables are relatively thick, so the forces and torques on an installed plug by its cable can be substantial, causing existing solder-free HDMI plugs to be prone to loosening over time from the female connector to which they are mated.  The ’572 patent discloses an HDMI cable connector with strain-relief tabs and wire holder halves that compress and non-reversibly lock together onto the cable without adhesive, so that its termination pins make electrical contact with the cable wires.

According to its website, Luxi Electronics Corp. is “a manufacturer of audio video products for consumer and professional markets.”  The company’s website provides a white paper entitled “The Art (and Science) of HDMI Cables,” which explains the benefits of its DIY™ cable connectors, which appear to conform to the description in the ’572 patent.  According to the USPTO database, th e’572 is Luxi Electronics’ first U.S. patent.

Each of the independent claims of the ’572 patent (see, e.g., Claim 3, above) include a relatively long list of features, each of which must be in an accused device in order for the device to be infringing.  For example, to infringe Claim 3, a competitor’s product must have the top shell, bottom shell, insulating connector core, set of top and bottom terminal pins, top wire holder, and bottom wire holder, all with the attributes as recited in Claim 3.  If the accused product omits even just one of these features or attributes, then the product would not infringe Claim 3.

For this reason, generally, a claim with such a large number of features or attributes (i.e., a narrower claim) is thought to be less desirable than a claim with fewer features or attributes (i.e., a broader claim).  After all, to avoid infringement, all the competitor needs to do is to omit just one of the recited features in its product.

However, narrow claims can be an important component in a company’s overall patent portfolio.  For example, even a narrow claim that covers the competitor’s product can provide value by forcing the competitor to redesign its product and to retool its manufacturing process.  Also, if a narrow claim covers an industry standard, it may not be practical for competitors to sell or use non-infringing products.  A narrower claim can also be less susecptible to a challenge of invalidity.  Practically speaking, in some cases, while broader claims might be preferable, the crowdedness of the prior art makes such broader claims more difficult to get allowed by the USPTO, so an applicant may first seek out the “lower hanging fruit” of a narrower claim, opting to continue the pursuit of the broader claim in a continuation application.

Since the claims as originally filed had a relatively narrow scope (being fairly similar to the issued claims of the ’572 patent), presumably Luxi Electronics was aware of the considerations regarding narrowness.  The company has filed a continuation application (U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. No. 2011-0256756A1) to pursue additional claims, some of which currently have fewer features than do the independent claims of the ’572 patent.

 

Filed under Electronics, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Artificial nails with application tabs; Pacific World Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,997,283

November 13, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,997,283, issued on August 16, 2011 to Pacific World Corp. of Lake Forest, CA, discloses a pre-formed artificial nail with an application tab to facilitate placement onto the user’s natural nail.

  

According to the ’283 patent, preformed, artificial fingernails can be difficult to position correctly.  It can be difficult to grasp the artificial nail, especially for shorter artificial nails (e.g., nail tips).  Also, there is limited time to position the artificial nail before the adhesive begins to set.  The ’283 patent discloses an artificial nail with an application tab configured to be easily grasped  and easily severed from the artificial nail once it is in the desired position.

Pacific World markets Nail Duets™ artificial nails that they have described as being “constructed in accordance with aspects of the claims” of the ’283 patent.

I thought it was interesting that before the examiner even reviewed the patent application, Pacific World submitted physical samples of its Nail Duets™ artificial nails, as well as physical samples of a competitor’s nails.  Historically, it used to be required that a patent application include a working model of the invention, but under current law, such models are rarely submitted unless necessary to demonstrate patentability.   A week after submitting the samples, Pacific World’s patent attorney had a phone conversation with the examiner, during which they discussed a 2004 reference that Pacific World provided to the examiner under its duty to disclose information relevant to patentability.

Unfortunately, despite the phone call and despite having the samples to inspect, the examiner rejected all the claims, citing the 2004 publication as the primary reference that made the invention unpatentable in her view.  Pacific World’s patent attorney made two subsequent attempts at convincing the examiner otherwise by submitting claim amendments and rebuttal arguments, but her attempts were unsuccessful.

In their third attempt, one of the inventors joined with her patent attorney to visit the patent examiner at the USPTO in Alexandria, VA to demonstrate and discuss the invention.  This personal interview was successful in convincing the examiner that the invention was not merely a rearrangement of parts that were found in the prior art, but was the result of the inventors’ realization that a previously-unrecognized problem existed and that the invention was the result of their development of a remedy to this problem.  The ’283 patent subsequently issued.

The ’283 patent is a good example of the power of conducting an in-person interview with the examiner to explain the invention and its differences from the prior art.  I find that it’s often easier to be persuasive in a personal interview, rather than over the phone or through a written argument.  It is also true that the discussion during an interview, whether in-person or by phone, can have a measure of informal give-and-take between the applicant’s patent attorney and the examiner, with generally only a brief summary of the conversation being placed on the record.  Contrast this with a written response in which everything is made of record (generally, less in the record is good for the patentee since everything on the record could be used to narrow the interpretation of the claims if they are ever asserted against a potential infringer).  There’s also the added benefit of presenting a human face for the examiner to associate with the application, especially if the inventor comes along, as occurred for the ’283 patent.

Pacific World is now pursuing additional claims in a continuation application that claims priority to the ’283 patent.  After multiple rejections, they recently conducted another in-person interview with the examiner, providing samples of the prior art, again attempting to convince the examiner.  We’ll have to wait and see if they are successful.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Piezoresistive acceleration sensor; Endevco Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,987,716

November 1, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,716, issued on August 2, 2011 to Endevco Corporation of San Juan Capistrano, CA, discloses a piezoresistive MEMS acceleration sensor.

     

Piezoresistive materials respond to applied mechanical stress by changing their resistivity.  Such materials can be used to create sensors of acceleration, pressure, or other phenomena by configuring the piezoresistive material to be stressed in response to the phenomenon.  For example, in a microelectromechanical system (MEMS), the piezoresistive material can be coupled to a mass that moves when the system undergoes acceleration, thereby applying a stress to the piezoresistive material.  Knowing the amount of resistive change for a given amount of stress, the acceleration can be measured by monitoring the resistance of the material. 

The ’716 patent discloses an acceleration sensor on a semiconductor substrate (e.g., Si or SiC) having two unbalanced and suspended masses that are flexibly coupled together and that are coupled to a quartet of piezoresistive elements in such a way as to measure acceleration-produced rotation of the masses about axes of the piezoresitive elements.

According to its website, Endevco (now called “Meggitt Sensing Systems”) is a subsidiary of Meggitt PLC, a British-based engineering company, and is “the world’s leading designer and manufacturer of dynamic instrumentation for vibration, shock and pressure measurements.”  Their sensors have been used for “impact monitoring of NASA’s space shuttle, automotive crash and crush safety testing, in-flight gas turbine vibration monitoring, and activity monitoring in pacemakers.”   The company website includes a number of videos which show its acceleration sensors in action.

According to the USPTO database, Endevco has been granted 22 U.S. patents,  with the ’716 patent being the company’s first in 2011. 

Filed under Electronics, ip, Mechanical, mems, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Air gap cover; Evriholder Products, Inc.; U.S. Design Pat. No. D642,243

October 23, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Design Patent No. D642,243, issued on July 26, 2011 to Evriholder Products, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, discloses a design for a cover that fits over a sink’s air gap.

 

The air gap of a kitchen sink prevents potentially dirty water from backflowing into and contaminating the clean water line and the dishwasher.  They often appear as a cylindrical protrusion near the back of the sink.  According to the company’s website, Evriholder markets the SinkSation™ air gap cover which “fits over the air gap cover on your kitchen sink to hold sponges, soap, and flowers” and “turns otherwise ugly plumbing into functional storage space.”  As seen above, the photos from Evriholder’s website show that the SinkSation™ air gap cover appears to conform to the design of the ’243 patent.  

Evriholder Products is “a family owned business founded in 1995 … to manufacture and market a small line of tie and belt organizers” and which grew to develop a wide range of products for kitchen, bath, cleaning, and storage that are licensed to many different household-familiar brands.   The company’s website states that it “develops 30 to 50 new products a year” and highlights examples such as the goldfish-shaped goldfish cracker container for Pepperidge Farm and sandwich crust cutters that divide sandwiches into kid-fun shapes.  In an online interview earlier this year, Evriholder’s CEO, Gary Seehoff, describes how the company got started and describes some of the aspects of distribution, manufacturing, and other issues of interest to inventors. 

According to the USPTO database, Evriholder owns 27 U.S. patents to date, all of which are design patents, and 11 of which were received in 2011.

Filed under Design, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Modular virtual city game; Adrenalin Gaming, Inc.; U.S. Pat. 7,980,913

October 20, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,980,913, issued on July 19, 2011 to Adrenalin Gaming, Inc., discloses a game system that simulates the operations of a city.

              

The ’013 patent discloses an interactive game designed to teach and entertain children about “the responsibilities that face adults in everyday life” and to “enable[] children, at a young age, to appreciate and respect the day-to-day efforts of their parents.”  The game is a modular system for constructing a virtual city using a plurality of connectable members that snap together and form the city foundation, upon which the buildings are affixed and linked to the central controller.  The city can include people, vehicles, and various buildings (e.g., homes, businesses, bank, city hall, firestation).  The system includes a controller (e.g., in city hall) with one or more processors to control various features of the city (e.g., traffic lights, emergency conditions such as smoke indicating a fire).

According to its website, Adrenalin Gaming was founded in 2001 and is directed towards “the conceptual development of various slot machines and table games.”  The instructional children’s game disclosed by the ’913 patent seems to be quite different from the company’s focus on gambling games, but according to the company’s Facebook page, Adrenalin Gaming is planning on introducing a line of family and adult board games in 2012.

The USPTO database shows that Adrenalin Gaming has five U.S. patents, including the ’913 patent. 

Filed under Electronics, ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Stem cell growth medium, California Stem Cell, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,977,096

October 18, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S Patent No. 7,977,096, issued on July 12, 2011 to California Stem Cell, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a growth medium for stem cells.

      

Stem cells are unspecified cells that are capable of dividing and renewing themselves over long periods of time.  In addition, stem cells can undergo differentiation whereby they are used by an adult organism to generate replacement cells for the specialized cells of heart, lung, nerve, and other tissues lost through normal wear and tear, injury, or disease (such specialized cells do not normally reproduce themselves).  During development of the organism, embryonic stem cells undergo differentiation to serve as the basis for the organism’s specialized tissues.  

Stem cells are seen as having significant promise in the treatment of numerous maladies due to their unique regenerative abilities.  According to the ’096 patent, growth of stem cells is typically performed in a base medium supplemented with serum or serum replacement.  Such a media formulation is intended to be sufficient to sustain conditions for cell survival or proliferation for a desired period of time without the differentiation that converts the stem cells into cells of specialized tissue.  The ’096 patent describes a media formulation for culturing human embryonic stem cells without substantial differentiation. 

According to its website, California Stem Cell, Inc. (CSC) is a privately held company, founded in 2005, “to catalyze the efficient development of human therapies based on human embryonic stem cells” by producing and supplying human stem cell lines using processes that are “scalable, efficient and highly reproducible … at a fraction of the cost of conventional cells manufacturing.”  The website includes numerous videos of CSC’s Board Chairman, Dr. Hans Keirstead, describing the importance of various milestones in the development of stem-cell-based therapies.

Last year, CSC submitted an Investigational New Drug application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of a Phase I clinical study for a stem-cell-based therapy of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and the company is working on providing additional animal study results to the FDA to further ensure safety.

The ’096 patent is CSC’s first U.S. patent, according to the USPTO database.

Filed under Chemical, ip, Medical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Motorcycle securing system; Moto Cinch, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,976,254

October 16, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,976,254, issued on July 12, 2011 to Moto Cinch, Inc. of Newport Beach, CA, discloses an anchoring system for motocycles or all-terrain vehicles to a flatbed for transport. 

      

The ’254 patent describes that tie-down straps are often ineffective and time-consuming for securing motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles for transportation on a flatbed.  The ’254 patent discloses an assembly that when secured to each side of the vehicle, compresses the shock absorber and inhibits the vehicle’s movement during transport.

According to the company’s website, the “Moto Cinch” is a patented cam action system” that avoids “the headaches associated with traditional tie-downs and the amount of time it takes to carefully secure your motorcycle while eliminating stresses on forks, seals and springs that could affect performance.”  A video on the website shows how the Moto Cinch operates by attaching to the bike’s footpegs and pulls the bike down into a secured position using a cammed lever. 

 The ’254 patent is the company’s first U.S. patent, according to the USPTO database.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Padlock retail display packaging; Hampton Products Int’l Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,971,714

September 20, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,971,714, issued on July 5, 2011 to Hampton Products Int’l Corp. of Foothill Ranch, CA, discloses a package for displaying a padlock for retail sale.

     

Conventional “clam shell” packaging can be difficult to open, since it can be tough to cut the clear, pre-formed plastic and to pull the two halves apart.  In fact, according to the ’714 patent, over 6,000 Americans per year visit the emergency room due to “clam shell” opening-related injuries.  In addition, such “clam shells” don’t generally permit the consumer to touch the product sealed within prior to purchase, thereby making it harder for the consumer to determine if the product is to their liking.  (I admit that I wouldn’t have thought that touching a padlock is an important consideration in a consumer’s decision to purchase.)

The ’714 patent discloses a package having a ridged card that mates with a back plate and has an aperture which contains the padlock.  The package provides access for the consumer to touch the padlock without removing it from the package, and that is easier to open to remove the padlock.  According to its website, Hampton Products manufactures “a wide range of residential hardware, lighting and travel security products” with “innovative, high quality designs.”  So far in 2011, Hampton Products has received three U.S. patents, including the ’714 patent.

The USPTO issued the ’714 patent rather quickly, about 15 months after the patent application was filed.  A review of the application’s file history shows that the patent attorney conducted an interview with the examiner in February 2011, and the application was allowed soon afterwards in a “first action allowance.”  I find that such interviews, either by telephone or in person, are a helpful tool for getting quick allowances (as appears to have occurred for the ’714 patent) and keeping costs as low as possible.  Instead of throwing paper back and forth between me and the USPTO, such interviews can cut to the chase, with the examiner explaining why he/she thinks the claims are not patentable, and I can refute these arguments, explaining the differences between the invention and the cited prior art references.

In some instances, particularly for complicated technologies, I find it helpful to bring the inventor along with me for the interview.  I have the inventor explain the details of the technology, and I then explain how the features the inventor described are manifested in the claim language and are not shown in the prior art.  Examiners are accustomed to talking with patent attorneys, but they are generally impressed when they get a chance to meet with the inventor; I think because it signals to the examiner that the invention is important (at least important enough for the inventor to come to discuss it).  Also, having the inventor participate in the interview puts a human face to the application.  At the same time, most examiners will not look kindly on an inventor that just pontificates, rambles, is belligerent, or goes off-topic.  That is why I spend time with the inventor prior to the interview to explain exactly what they should discuss and how to discuss it.  I also want to ensure that they are mindful of the hints that I give them during the interview (e.g., kicks under the table) when I think they have gone off-track.  When done well, I have seen interviews conducted with the inventor turn a dubious examiner into a convert. 

 

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , ,

Refueling station for CNG vehicles; Clean Energy Fuels Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,967,036

September 18, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,967,036, issued on June 28, 2011 to Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, CA discloses a compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling station.

     

According to the ’036 patent, certain conventional CNG refueling stations operate with predetermined inlet gas pressures and flow ranges.  Other conventional CNG refueling stations use an inlet gas regulator that results in a sacrifice of gas pressure, and general energy inefficiency by virtue of the recompression needed.  Both conventional designs have generally fixed flow speeds and do not allow flow capacity control.  The ’036 patent discloses a CNG station that include an inlet booster for a reciprocating compressor which allows the gas flow capacity to be controlled and can accept a wide range of inlet gas pressure conditions.  Such a CNG station can accept a wide range of different site gas pressures (e.g., from zero to 200 psig).  By adjusting the inlet booster capacity, the CNG station can control the amount of gas compression capacity and power consumption.

According to the company’s 2010 annual report, Clean Energy Fuels touts itself as “the largest provider of natural gas fuel for transportation in North Americal and a global leader in the expanding natural gas vehicle market … fuel[ing] over 21,200 vehicles daily at 224 strategic locations.”  A recent press release reports that a few weeks ago, Clean Energy Fuels received an investment of $150 million which is earmarked for supporting the company’s “fueling infrastructure building program … includ[ing] the development, construction and operation of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling stations.”

Clean Energy was founded by noted billionaire, T. Boone Pickens, incorporated as “Pickens Fuel Corp.” in 1997, and later re-incorporated as “Clean Energy Fuels Corp.” in 2001.  The company was a primary backer of November 2008′s Proposition 10, “California Alternative Fuels Initiative” (to the tune of more than $18 million), which sought to authorize $5 billion in state bonds to fund alternative fuel technology.  The proposition was defeated by a 59-41 vote.

The ’036 patent is Clean Energy Fuel’s first U.S. patent, according to the USPTO database.

Filed under Chemical, Cleantech, ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Safety knife; Spellbound Development Group, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,966,732

September 12, 2011 1 Comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,966,732, issued on June 28, 2011 to Spellbound Development Group, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a knife blade cover that is unlocked by the user’s index finger and that automatically snaps back into place after each cut.

 

The ’732 patent discloses a safety utility knife that includes a blade cover that is locked in place until a trigger is depressed, upon which the cover can rotate to uncover the blade.  After the cut is made, the blade cover snaps back into place over the blade, even if the trigger continues to be depressed by the user, thereby preventing accidents.

According to its website, Spellbound was founded in 1984 to provide safety products to help its customers in areas such as food services and food processing, retail, hospitality, and grocery and convenience stores to minimize losses in the workplace.   Its “Product Development Group” specializes in “developing custom and proprietary safety products.”   Spellbound’s CrewSafe® line of safety utility knives is touted as having a patented blade guard and safety trigger system that looks like the one described in the ’732 patent.

According to the USPTO database, Spellbound owns 9 U.S. patents, including two U.S. design patents.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Removing CO2 from coal-plant exhaust; FlueGen, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,964,170

September 9, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,964,170, issued on June 21, 2011 to FlueGen, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a method of removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the gas emitted from a coal-fired boiler.

As explained by the ’170 patent, coal-fired power plants emit gaseous pollutants that include CO2, which contributes to global warming.  The method disclosed by the ’170 patent uses a stream of alkaline liquid to absorb the CO2 from the flue gases and forms a mixture of bicarbonate and carbonate using an aldehyde catalyst.

According to its website, FlueGen was founded in 2007 “to commercialize a highly innovative technology that separates and captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial flue gas at extremely low cost and with minimal energy consumption.”

The ’170 patent is FlueGen’s first U.S. patent, according to the USPTO database.

Filed under Chemical, Cleantech, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Cleaning contaminants from landfill-extracted gas; FlexEnergy Energy Systems, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,959,710

August 31, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,959,710, issued on June 14, 2011 to FlexEnergy Energy Systems, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a system and method for removing water and siloxane contaiminants from gas obtained from a landfill or wastewater treatment facility.

According to the ’710 patent, gas extracted from landfills or wastewater treatment facilities for energy generation contains impurities (e.g., water vapor and siloxanes) “that would cause pollution or damage to a combustion chamber … if not removed from the gas.”   Once cleaned of these contaminants, the gas can be burned for producing electricity or for doing work (e.g., driving compressors or cogeneration of hot water).  The invention performs this cleaning of the gas by expanding the gas below the freezing temperature of water to form ice, separating the ice and siloxanes from the flowing gas, and consuming the gas.

FlexEnergy announced in January 2011 that it had acquired the Energy Systems business of Ingersoll Rand, which included the ’710 patent as part of a patent portfolio with 17 other U.S. patents and patent applications, as well as others in other countries and regions (e.g., China, Europe, Russian Federation).  Terms of the sale were not announced.

According to its website, FlexEnergy has developed the Flex Powerstation™, which it touts as “the world’s cleanest power platform” and “the most versatile waste gas destruction and power generator in the world.”  The company explains that over 300 million tons of man-related methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, seeps into the atmosphere each year worldwide.  Much of this gas is so-called “low BTU” gas, meaning that it has “low energy density, high inert contaminants, high water content” that using traditional technologies would “require expensive and unreliable fuel conditioning” to use as an energy source.  FlexEnergy’s technology transforms this methane, extracted from landfills or other sources, into a source of electricity with near zero emissions and meeting California’s strict air regulations. 

Claim 1 of the ’710 patent is an example of a particular form of patent claim called a “means plus function” claim.  In general, there are two primary types of patent claims: “system” claims and “method” claims.  System claims describe the invention in terms of the structural components that make up the invention: e.g., the turbines, compressors, valves, sensors, etc.  If a competitor’s product has all of the components listed in the system claim, then it would be infringing the system claim.  Method claims describe the invention in terms of what it does: the steps of the process that the invention carries out.  If a competitor’s product performs all the steps listed in the claim, then it would be infringing the method claim. 

Both types of claims can be valuable to have in a patent, because a competitor’s product can be infringing the one type of claim without infringing the other.  For example, if a competitor’s product omits at least one of the elements of the system claim, it would not be infringing the claim.  But such a product may still be performing all the steps of the claimed method, so it would be infringing the method claim.  In other situations, the competitor’s product can have all the recited components of the system claim, but does not perform each and every step listed in the method claim, so the product would be infringing the system claim but not the method claim.  Having both types of claims can provide broader scope of protection than either type alone.

There’s another type of claim called a “means plus function” claim, which is actually a type of system claim.  Instead of reciting the invention in terms of its structure, the elements of the invention in a “means plus function” claim are recited in terms of what they do.  A good example is Claim 1 of the ’710 patent, reproduced above, which recites a “means for expanding the gas,” a “means for separating the ice and siloxanes from the gas,” and a “means for consuming the gas.”   ”Means plus function” claims are system claims in which one or more of the components are described by their functions, not by their structures. 

On their face, “means plus function” claims look to be pretty broad.  For example, instead of Claim 1 of the ’710 patent reciting an engine (a structural limitation), it recites a “means for consuming the gas,” which would seem to cover anything that performs the function of consuming gas: engines, burners, compressors, fuel cells, etc.  However, ”means plus function” claim scope can be deceiving. 

Under the patent laws, a “means plus function” claim is interpreted to only cover the structural elements that are disclosed in the patent application to be performing the recited function.  For example, a cursory review of the ’710 patent shows that it neglected to disclose that a fuel cell can be used to consume the gas.  The “means plus function” claim would then not be interpreted to cover a system using a fuel cell to consume the gas, and a competitor’s product that did so, even if the product has all the other claim elements, presumably would not be infringing despite the claim’s apparent breadth.  (I say “presumably” because there are probably arguments, perhaps strong ones, that could be made for why a “fuel cell” is actually an engine or one of the other structural elements disclosed by the ’710 patent for consuming the gas.)  Still,  “means plus function” claims in the patentee’s arsenal can provide valuable protection.

Filed under Chemical, Cleantech, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Multiple beam laser vibrometry; MetroLaser, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,961,332

August 24, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,961,332, issued on June 14, 2011 to MetroLaser, Inc. of Irvine, CA discloses a fiber-optic heterodyne imaging vibrometer.

According to the ’332 patent, existing techniques for measuring high speed surface deformations or vibrations use a single laser beam which is scanned across the surface.  The movement of the surface can be measured using interferometry to detect the Doppler shift of the light (e.g., in laser Doppler vibrometry or LDV) or changes in the speckle pattern of the reflected light (e.g., in electronic speckle pattern interferometry or ESPI).  While these techniques work well for steady-state or well-characterized vibrations, the time in scanning the single beam across the surface being measured can make it difficult to measure transient or non-steady-state vibrations.  The ’332 patent discloses a system that uses multiple laser beams to irradiate the surface and a flood reference beam to generate multiple interference signals simultaneously across the two-dimensional surface. 

According to MetroLaser’s website, the company’s VibroMet™ multi-beam laser Doppler vibrometers are being used for noise and vibration measurements world-wide in a variety of industrial, military, and space applications (e.g., automobile, aircraft, and even landmine detection). 

According to the USPTO database, MetroLaser has 10 U.S. patents, and the ’332 patent is its first in 2011. 

Filed under ip, optics, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Expandable rods to treat scoliosis; Ellipse Technologies, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,955,357

August 23, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,955,357, issued on June 7, 2011 to Ellipse Technologies, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a system that uses expandable rods that are implanted in a patient’s back to provide a controlled force over an extended period of time to counter a scoliotic curve of the spine.

 

According to the ’357 patent, if adolescent or idiopathic scoliosis is caused by tight ligament fibers (ligamentum flavum) running along the spine, then it should be treatable using mechanical stretching.  The ’357 patent discloses an expandable rod that is implantable “under the skin and attached to selected portions fo the scoliotic curve of the spine at opposing ends of the rod.”  The rod can be incrementally lengthened to produce a controlled force tending to stretch the ligamentum flavum of the spine over an extended period of time to allow the spine to straighten. 

According to the company’s website, Ellipse Technologies’ initial product, the MAGEC™ (MAGnetic Expansion Control) system uses “novel motion-preserving, minimally invasive technology that, through communication with an external magnetic field, can be dynamically adjusted in an outpatient setting via remote control by a medical professional to correct spinal deformities.”  By using an implant that can be adjusted non-invasively, the MAGEC™ system (pronounced “magik” according to a company video) is designed to avoid multiple surgical procedures that the child patient would otherwise have to endure. 

In a recent press release, the company announced that its MAGEC™ system has been approved for use in Europe, but is not yet available in the U.S.  The company has recently closed its Series C private equity financing event, raising $17.6 million. 

The ’357 patent is the first of three U.S. patents issued to Ellipse Technologies so far in 2011.  The company also has numerous U.S. patent applications still pending, according the USPTO database.

 

Filed under ip, Medical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Visual Prosthesis; Second Sight Medical Products, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,000,000

August 16, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,000,000 has been issued today by the USPTO to Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. of Sylmar, CA.  While Second Sight is not an Orange County company, I thought readers of this blog would be interested in this patent at least for its milestone patent number.

According to the ’000 patent, the prosthesis combines an implantable retinal stimulator and a video camera in a wearable visor.  The system also includes a video processing unit that converts the video image to a stimulation pattern and an external coil that transmits the stimulation pattern to the implant.  If valid telemetry data is not received from the implant, the system stops stimulating the wearer’s retina.   

According to the company’s website,  its “Argus™ II” prosthesis system “elicit[s] visual perception in blind subjects with severe to profound retinitis pigmentosa.”  According to a recent article in the MIT Technology Review, the “Argus™ II” system has been approved for clinical use in Europe, and the company is collaborating with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in clinical trials in the U.S. and is pursuing approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.  A YouTube™ video shows how the system works. 

The system works for people with retinitis pigmentosa  (RP), by bypassing the damaged photoreceptors  and stimulating the retina’s remaining cells, which the patient “can learn to interpret as visual patterns.”  To me, the system sounds reminiscent to cochlear implants which provide people who have lost hearing due to certain conditions the ability to hear again.  My mom has benefited greatly from her cochlear implants, and hopefully Second Sight’s device can provide similar benefits for patients with RP.

Since the invention was made with support from a NIH grant, the U.S. government has certain rights to the invention.  According to the USPTO database, Second Sight owns about 90 U.S. patents, and the ’000 patent is the company’s 23rd U.S. patent received so far in 2011.

The USPTO has noted this milestone patent in a press release, and it provides a brief history and description of the other members of the “million”-aire patent club.

Filed under Electronics, ip, Medical, optics, patent, Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

Tool for extracting nails; Nail Jack Tools, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 7,950,627

July 28, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,950,627, issued on May 31, 2011 to Nail Jack Tools, Inc. of Laguna Beach, CA, discloses methods of fabricating and using a hand tool for extracting nails, staples, and other fasteners from a material.

According to the ’627 patent, it can be difficult to remove nails, brads, and staples that are embedded below the surface of the workpiece.  The hand tool disclosed by the ’627 patent has a head with two pivotably joined halves that can dig below the surface and grip an embedded fastener, and a pair of handles that can serve as a lever to extract the fastener.  The ’627 patent includes claims to methods of using the hand tool and methods of fabricating the hand tool.

Nail Jack’s website includes various links to videos of the tool in action.  According to the USPTO database, the company owns three U.S. patents on fastener extraction tools, including the ’627 patent.

The ’627 patent provides a good example of the various priority dates that claims of a U.S. patent can have.  The priority date of a claim is important since it is the date used to determine what information, or “prior art,” was known to the public at the time the invention was made (i.e., before the priority date).  Any information qualifying as ”prior art” can be used to determine whether the invention satisfies the requirements of patentability (i.e., being new and non-obvious).  The earlier the patent’s priority date, the smaller the universe of potential prior art that can be cited against the claims of the patent.

The application that resulted in the ’627 patent was filed as a continuation-in-part application citing priority to an earlier-issued U.S. Pat. No. 7,703,748.  By identifying the ’627 patent as a continuation-in-part application, Nail Jack indicates that the ’627 patent includes additional disclosure that was not included in the earlier-issued ’748 patent.  Both the ’627 patent and the earlier-issued ’748 patent also cite the benefit of priority to a U.S. provisional application filed in November 2007.

As a result, each of the claims of the ’627 patent can have one of three priority dates, based on the filing dates of the U.S. provisional, the ’748 patent, and the ’627 patent:

    • Claims that are fully supported by the disclosure of the U.S. provisional application: November 20, 2007.
    • Claims that are at least partially supported by the disclosure of the earlier ’748 patent: January 11, 2008.
    • Claims that are at least partially supported by the new disclosure added in the ’627 patent: July 8, 2008.

Therefore, any prior art dated before November 20, 2007 can potentially be cited against all the claims of the ’627 patent.  And any prior art dated after July 8, 2008 cannot be cited against any of the claims of the ’627 patent. 

As another example, if there was a relevant document authored by someone else and published on January 1, 2008, it may well qualify as prior art to any claims of the ’627 patent that are at least partially supported by the disclosures of the ’748 patent or by the ’627 patent, but it would not qualify as prior art to any claims that are fully supported by the disclosure of the U.S. provisional application.  As this example shows, it can get complicated to determine which claims get which priority date.

When the USPTO is examining a patent application to determine whether to grant a patent, the examiner generally uses the earliest priority date for all the claims.  By doing so, the USPTO confines itself to using references that qualify as prior art for all the claims, and avoids having to delve into the potentially-complicated issue of determining priority dates of different claims.  However, if the validity of a U.S. patent is being challenged (e.g., in a litigation or in a reexamination proceeding), the priority dates of the various claims are typically closely scrutinized to determine if there is a potential piece of prior art that might be used to invalidate one or more of the claims.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Shoe chassis; Auri Design Group, LLC; U.S. Pat. No. 7,946,060

July 18, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 7,946,060, issued on May 24, 2011 to Auri Design Group, LLC of Laguna Beach, CA, discloses a shoe chassis containing a cushioning material within a similarly-shaped hole.

    

According to a recent OC Metro article, Auri Design Group, LLC (now Auri, Inc.) recently became a publicly-traded company via a reverse merger.  According to its website, Auri has a “ground breaking Laguna Beach-based fashion lab [that] delivers NASA grade materials, performance technologies, with passionate and ultra tasteful style.”  Auri’s designs include ”[a]ctive suspension systems, utilizing highly effective impact protection from new hybrid foam technologies,” [t]emperature regulating linings,” and “[r]emovable multi-density anatomical foot-beds.”  As a former physicist, I’m about as ignorant as you’d expect regarding fashion, but I can certainly appreciate the effort and thought that went into Auri’s incorporating the latest technologies into making footwear that is comfortable.  The company has an entertaining  YouTube® video that presents its shoe designs and its technology in a spy-genre short film.

Just before the ’060 patent issued, the company filed a continuation patent application that claims priority to the ’060 patent.  Such continuation patent applications can be used to pursue additional patent protection for the technology disclosed by the original patent application filed in January 2008.  For example, while the claims of the ’060 patent are directed to a shoe chassis having particular features, there may be other ways to claim the invention more broadly, or at least differently, perhaps with alternative wording.  There’s an inherent imprecision when describing a physical entity (in this case, a shoe chassis) using words, but it is the precise wording of a patent’s claims that determine the scope of protection of the patent.  Therefore, obtaining claims using alternative wording to describe the scope of protection can be useful to block competitors from taking advantage of the imprecise nature of language.

In addition, having a continuation patent application on file at the USPTO can be helpful when the patentee finds out about potentially infringing activity and wants to bolster its scope of protection.  In such cases, the continuation patent application can be used to pursue narrower claims that are tailored to the infringing products.  Since narrower claims are presumably more immune to challenges of invalidity, the continuation patent application might be used to pursue claims that will better withstand the glare of attention that comes with a patent infringement lawsuit.

According to the USPTO database, besides the ’060 patent (the company’s first regular U.S. patent), Auri owns three U.S. design patents to three shoe outsole designs.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers