EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

They might be in trouble with potentially having their patent application rejected, but does mean they are infringing the other patents?
Wouldn't it just mean that their variation is simply not novel enough to warrant granting a new patent?
The discussion seem quite extensive (see attached).

I think the examiner is more interested in obviousness than novelty. If the examiner rejects based on novelty against the claims of an active patent, then I think there would likely be potential infringement issue. Same with direct obviousness. However, for obviousness against combination of patents (sec 103 - the current batteriser prior art), it's a lot less clear to me (not lawyer); seems like you could have a patent rejected but be ok to enter market in many/most cases but can’t find that stated anywhere. I think this case may fall under the “Doctrine of equivalents” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents but I don’t really know.

I doubt that's the only reason for the delay though.

I doubt it's a reason for any delay.

Agreed in this case. However, half the use of a patent is to be “reasonably assured you can enter the space”; if they are really sincere that they wish to enter the market as a serious company it would be dumb not wait out the short period until fully examined by the USPTO since the space is fairly convoluted, and the number of units they wish to send out is definitely enough to get them noticed if there is an infringement issue present. If they wait, then they can possibly maneuver a bit to get out of infringement (if any found) and if they're rejected but not in infringement, then no big deal in-terms of shipping units. I think they knew this would be the normal thing to do, which is why at the bottom of their Indiegogo page, the timeline clearly says “2010-2013 … Patents” as if they had done it before presale.

The discussion seem quite extensive (see attached).

Attached file from the patent examiner which is in reference to previous attachment; not a quick read but makes the other file from Batteroo more readable.

[coppice]

Wouldn't it just mean that their variation is simply not novel enough to warrant granting a new patent?

How could you possibly measure a quantity of novelty? What the patent system is supposed to judge is obviousness of novelty to someone versed in the field, although it does a pretty poor job of this.

[ChunkyPastaSauce]

Wouldn't it just mean that their variation is simply not novel enough to warrant granting a new patent?

How could you possibly measure a quantity of novelty? What the patent system is supposed to judge is obviousness of novelty to someone versed in the field, although it does a pretty poor job of this.

Obviousness and novelty are treated as separate things by the patent office. Novelty is actually considered the easier of the two to measure, since it is usually just examining claims, dates, and disclosures. Obviousness is... less obvious see http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

[coppice]

Wouldn't it just mean that their variation is simply not novel enough to warrant granting a new patent?

How could you possibly measure a quantity of novelty? What the patent system is supposed to judge is obviousness of novelty to someone versed in the field, although it does a pretty poor job of this.

Obviousness and novelty are treated as separate things by the patent office. Novelty is actually considered the easier of the two to measure, since it is usually just examining claims, dates, and disclosures. Obviousness is... less obvious see http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

The patent office doesn't try to measure amounts of novelty, only that novelty is present.

[EEVblog]

How could you possibly measure a quantity of novelty? What the patent system is supposed to judge is obviousness of novelty to someone versed in the field, although it does a pretty poor job of this.

That's because the patent examiner almost certainly isn't someone who's well versed in the practical  field.

[Fungus]

How could you possibly measure a quantity of novelty? What the patent system is supposed to judge is obviousness of novelty to someone versed in the field, although it does a pretty poor job of this.

That's because the patent examiner almost certainly isn't someone who's well versed in the practical  field.

And it doesn't help that they only get paid to accept patents, not to reject them.

[adprom]

AFAICT, that's hearsay until confirmed.

You have just completely made up that capacitor theory! It is complete hearsay (and unwarranted speculation) that something may exist where there has been no indication that it exists, and it is not mentioned in any patent. If that was the case - they would be marketing the hell out of it.

Nearly any decently designed device has a boost converter in in it. No well designed digital camera works poorly with rechargeable batteries. It has been years since I have had a device that has a particularly high cut off voltage. I think the last, was a really old cordless mouse.

You're a careful buyer. Least cost economics tend to favor poor choices.

As Dave said, it is quite hard to find any circuit, even cheap rubbish that doesn't have a boost converter in it.

Sadly, many consumer electronics products are not designed for optimal battery performance.

See comment above.

[drussell]

And it doesn't help that they only get paid to accept patents, not to reject them.

Huh?

The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

[coppice]

And it doesn't help that they only get paid to accept patents, not to reject them.

Huh?

The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

The patent office gets paid for accepting patents, so their ability to pay staff is predicated on sustaining a good rate of patent acceptance. Not following a "when in doubt accept" policy is not likely to be career enhancing.

[Fungus]

And it doesn't help that they only get paid to accept patents, not to reject them.

Huh? The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

Sure, but their bosses don't.

Patents are a commercial enterprise. Their bosses want them to accept as many patents as possible. Rejecting a lot of patents is frowned upon.

[Fungus]

AFAICT, that's hearsay until confirmed.

You have just completely made up that capacitor theory! It is complete hearsay (and unwarranted speculation) that something may exist where there has been no indication that it exists

Hey, that's the way the over-unity people roll...

[EEVblog]

The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

I wonder if there are any rouge hard-arse patent examiners? who just sit there all day and go:

Nope!
Bullshit!
*face palm*
You gotta be kidding!

[McBryce]

The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

I wonder if there are any rouge hard-arse patent examiners? who just sit there all day and go:

Nope!
Bullshit!
*face palm*
You gotta be kidding!

No, they do an IQ test at the interview and if you pass it you don't get a job.

McBryce.

[Wytnucls]

Einstein once worked in a patent office...admittedly, not in the US.

[Godzil]

The patent examiner at the patent office gets paid their salary regardless of how many patents they accept or deny.

I wonder if there are any rouge hard-arse patent examiners? who just sit there all day and go:

Nope!
Bullshit!
*face palm*
You gotta be kidding!

And have a cousin named Probe?

[Fungus]

I wonder if there are any rouge hard-arse patent examiners? who just sit there all day and go:

Nope!
Bullshit!
*face palm*
You gotta be kidding!

Sadly, not.

I'd love to work at the patent office. I'd totally be rejecting stuff all day long.

OTOH I know somebody who works in a patent office in Germany (Munich). They showed me around their new building/offices one day and it's unbelievable. All very plush and everything completely automated. Detectors to know if anybody is in the room to control the heating individually, automatic window blinds with sunlight detectors, etc. Must have cost a fortune to build and you don't get that sort of money from rejecting patents.

The Patent Office is a perfect example of something that should be paid for with taxpayer money. There's no way acceptance of patents should have a profit motive (and they should only employ curmudgeons).

[d-smes]

The US Patent and Trademark building is also very nice.  While they are funded with taxpayer money, they are the only US government agency that takes in way more than they spend (the IRS doesn't count).  They actually turn a profit (it goes into the General Fund; they don't get to spend it).  I suspect that is true of other patent offices around the world.  While it is true one must pay an Issue Fee for a patent to become official, the real money is made with annuity payments required every several years (yearly in the EU, I believe) to keep the patent or trademark active and enforceable throughout its 20 year life.

Sorry I can't dispel the "profit motive" appearance.  But I will say it's not a slam dunk to get a patent.  The examiners are very good at finding published papers and prior art to reject ones claim.  It takes several back-and-forth office actions to explain and educate them how your invention works and is different.   In the end, only about 80% of my dozens of applications were granted patent status.

[Fungus]

Sorry I can't dispel the "profit motive" appearance.  But I will say it's not a slam dunk to get a patent.  The examiners are very good at finding published papers and prior art to reject ones claim.  It takes several back-and-forth office actions to explain and educate them how your invention works and is different.   In the end, only about 80% of my dozens of applications were granted patent status.

Maybe for "prior art" but certainly not for "non-obviousness".

[dexters_lab]

well this comes as no surprise!

interesting though they do reveal the prototype had a maximum 500mA output limit

Dear Indiegogo Supporters,

Our team has been hard at work completing final development of Batteriser and moving into initial production. At this time, we have encountered a slight delay relating to the manufacturing of the Batteriser's integrated circuit (IC).

Our earlier proof of concept prototype IC could efficiently deliver 500 milliamps of steady state current. However, as many applications need higher current driving capabilities, we modified our Integrated Circuit (IC) design to make it capable of the higher level of current driving capability. We expected our final IC to be ready and out of the fabrication facility (FAB) over a month ago. However, due to a drift in process parameters, the IC is still being worked on by our engineering team, in order to be ready for mass production. Fortunately, we have been working diligently with the FAB to address and fix the issues responsible for this delay, and we are anxiously waiting to receive our final IC in the coming weeks. We are committed to producing your Batterisers with the highest quality standards.

As you might recall, this is the last component necessary to start assembling and shipping Batterisers. At this time, we will need to delay our estimated ship date, but we are doing everything possible to ship Batterisers to you and your family as soon as possible, and hopefully before Christmas.

As part of our commitment to shipping to our supporters as early as possible, we have already made arrangements to have the first production batch shipped via air from our manufacturing partners in Asia, therefore significantly expediting the overall shipping process. Although we will incur significantly more costs by air shipping, it will be well worth the reward of making our Indiegogo supporters happy.

We sinerely apologize for the delay and for any inconvenience it may cause you. We couldn't be more thankful for your support, and hope to have Batterisers in your hands as soon as possible! Thank you and please enjoy a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Best Wishes,
Bob Roohparvar
CEO | Batteroo, Inc.

[PA0PBZ]

interesting though they do reveal the prototype had a maximum 500mA output limit

And they still don't specify the maximum current of the modified Integrated Circuit (IC).

[SeanB]

501mA maximum current, or 1.002A in marketing speak.

[dexters_lab]

501mA maximum current

lol, you beat me to it!

[Wytnucls]

interesting though they do reveal the prototype had a maximum 500mA output limit

And they still don't specify the maximum current of the modified Integrated Circuit (IC).

They were bragging about 1.5A output. 

[Mr.B]

interesting though they do reveal the prototype had a maximum 500mA output limit

And they still don't specify the maximum current of the modified Integrated Circuit (IC).

They were bragging about 1.5A output. 

At some stage in the past they were boasting "as much as the battery could deliver"...  Which we all know is pure BS.
I just cannot find the original Bob Roohparvar post to be able to quote it here.

[Wytnucls]

Drift in process parameters: FAB can't produce functioning ICs in sufficient numbers. Too many duds.