• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

invention or embodiment?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

pmarlow

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California

As a novice inventor, I am confused regarding the differences between an invention and an embodiment, and some other things (actually a lot of things). My attorney doesn’t have the time or inclination to teach me the basics. So I need some help.

I’m trying to improve an existing patent application (my first) that I had submitted to the USPTO a few months ago. To incorporate the improvements, I’ll probably have to file a continuation-in-part. But for now, I’d just like to fix the errors and weaknesses in the description and claims. One object is to avoid the expense of divisional applications. Another object is to make sure my claims are broad yet reasonable. I’ll use a simple example to describe my problem.

Let’s say there are no toasters yet in the world. The prior art does include oven appliances. All ovens in the prior art have a door, a thermostat, one or more racks, and one gas or electric element under the bottom rack. Nothing more. Toasted bread is in the prior art. It’s typically prepared by placing slices of bread in an oven flat on a rack. But making toast takes a long time and wastes a lot of energy. Portable ovens, ovens having a housing with a vertical opening configured to receive a single bread slice, bread slice lowering and ejection systems, dual heating element ovens, and oven timers don’t yet exist.

Now I have just invented an appliance, the first “toaster”, that comprises the following features, all novel: An automatic timing controller is user set for a desired time interval. A slice of bread is received vertically through an external opening in a portable housing and placed on an upwardly biased support member within the housing. The support member, with the slice of bread resting on it, is manually lowered into an internal chamber, whereupon a latch secures it in the lowered position, the automatic timing controller is started, and dual electrical heating coils configured to heat both sides of the bread slice simultaneously are automatically energized. At the conclusion of the set time interval, the automatic timing controller de-energizes the heating coils and releases the latch. Therewith, the support member pops up and the toasted bread slice is partially ejected from the housing.

The automatic timing controller received a lot of consideration during the creation of the toaster. Upon conceiving the first automatic timing controller, I realized that it was very important in its own right and thought I had better be very thorough with its design. As I improved it I realized that I had developed two very unique and different approaches to its realization and competed designs for each. I can think of many applications for the automatic timing controller beyond the toaster. In fact, the toaster sometimes seems trivial in comparison.

Is the toaster the invention or the embodiment of the invention? If it is the latter, then what exactly is the invention? I understand that another embodiment might show a toaster that can do two or more slices at a time. But that seems obvious. I would think that a remark about that in the description along these lines, “It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art …”, would be sufficient. Does it really need to be shown and described as a new embodiment? Beyond that, what might be considered another embodiment?

Would a standard oven incorporating just one of the elements of my toaster, for example, the automatic timing controller, be acceptable as another embodiment of the same invention? How about if the standard oven used only its standard door and racks, but incorporated most of the elements of the toaster, for example, if it had the automatic timing controller, portability, a size suitable for toasting bread slices, and my novel dual heating coil system (in a top and bottom element configuration)? If not, what if we add an automatically opening front door and an automatically extending oven rack?

Can another embodiment include features not in the first embodiment, for example, a removable crumb collection tray configured under the bread? Is it understandable that such a feature may be incorporated in any of the embodiments? Would an independent claim on such a feature be appropriate?

Would I have to explicitly depict in the drawings or description all such conceivable embodiments to be able to include claims broad enough to cover such variations of my toaster? If necessary, can I add the drawings and descriptions of such embodiments in a continuation-in-part application? In that situation, would the claims relating to the new embodiments, even if nothing really new is invented therein, receive the new priority date?

On its own, the automatic timing controller is useless. It doesn’t toast bread. Is it an invention or is it only considered such if it is part of a larger system that does something useful? Do I have to show other embodiments of other useful systems using my automatic timing controller, such as a washing machine, in order to prove its universal applicability?

The recently submitted patent application includes a very thorough description of each of the two new automatic timing controllers. Can I reasonably hope the USPTO will allow me in the same toaster application to separately and independently claim each one as a stand-alone invention with no reference to the toaster?

In the same toaster application, can I independently claim to have invented an oven with left and right or top and bottom dual heating elements? Do I need to have drawings and descriptions of subsets of my toaster to claim such? Where does the USPTO draw the line?

Can I have several independent claims for each of the individual elements of the new technology in my toaster, for example, a portable oven, an oven housing with fixed upper openings, a novel latched spring biased receiving and ejection system, an automatic timing controller, a dual element heater, a removable crumb collection tray, etc? Or, will I be limited to a claim that just addresses the use of my technology in toasters?

I know that I am confused, and for that reason, my questions may appear confusing. I appreciate your patience in reading this far. Thank you in advance for your advice.What is the name of your state?
 


divgradcurl

Senior Member
First off, I will admit I did not read your very long post in it's entirety.

All embodiments that you intend to claim, or be covered by claims, need to be disclosed in the specification. That doesn't mean that you need to explicitly spell out and have a drawing of each and every embodiment, but you do need some disclosure. For example, you don't need to fully describe a toaster with 2, 3, 4 and 5 openings separately, but you will need to have something along the lines of "although the present embodiment is shown with 2 slots, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a toaster with only 1 slot, or with as many slots as are needed for the particular implementation." Something like that.

The trick is writing enough to cover every embodiment you can think of. If you leave something out that you knew about, then those embodiments not described are probably not going to covered by the patent. And any embodiments you DO decribe, but fail to claim, become "dedicated to the public" and cannot be protected.

As far as avoiding divisionals, there probably isn't much you can do about that, other than file separate applications or not claim the full scope of your disclosed invention (which would dedicate the unclaimed material to the public, or, if you wanted to protect it, would require filing a continuation, which is just as much work and expense as a divisional in the first place). A restriction requirement will come from the examiner, and it's tough to argue around it -- the way examiners get paid, and get bonuses, incentivizes them to restrict applications and force divisional practice. If you really have (or arguably have) multiple inventions, you will almost certainly get a restriction requirement, and it's hard to get out of a restriction. You will likely just have to deal with it.

If you want the timing control to have the broadest possible application, you will probably want to file a separate application.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top