humanvertical - Intellectual Property

Mobile Maps and Online Mapping Tools in IP Monetization

Thu, 09 Jun 2022 23:39:00 +0000

The importance in licensing and monetization in mapping technologies for the use of engineering and various STEM related or enterprise projects are key to understand how this specific technology attains monetization and value both for the seller, the licensee by making navigation easier. In the scenario of consumer based maps, we will take into consideration mapping in the context of street view developed by Google and used by multiple industries and key players in the software sector.

Mapping provides value to many aspects of life, business and engineering communications. We see numerous examples and products that map environments, objects and territories to better understand how we should proceed with a consumer or commercial endeavor. One key product where IP and patentability are considered of value are popular mobile phone maps and applications—they all do it differently, however the outcome is generally the same...hence leading you to your destination. When discussing IP, feature sets, ubiquity varies from one platform to another as seen in Apple Maps, Google Maps, Waze and other mapping systems. However, one specific feature we will focus on is Street View and its profitability as a licensing tool for everyone to use as an integration method into a business model through its API.

Street view is a convenient way to see a building, home or structure in order to ensure and verify you are doing business with the correct address, and everything from fast food delivery apps, grocery delivery, packages and other tangible assets and mapping tools use streets maps to visualize work effort. Conventionally these processes used paper mapping methods, knowledge or memory to ensure deliveries and correspondence were allocated correctly but with the advent of visual representation, satellite imagery and sensor mapping with the likes of Google, Waze and many other back end mapping tools—we’ve had the convenience of identifying our destination addresses easier with coordinates and positioning systems. With these technological benefits, what are the value line’s in IP monetization where APIs and proprietary code can be licensed and cashed out?

When taking a look at mapping systems we see product development solutions on a digital platform—a database of information where multiple amounts of primary and secondary tiers of business use it to improve their work flow. The IP monetization value derives from the work the originator has done to put together the unknown pieces of the visualization work space known as Street View, Terrain View and various other cartography feature sets, satellite imagery and voice guided turn by turn vocational tools. Mapping in any field or sector is an ongoing effort. For example…in 2018 when Google replaced its old mapping licenses, it implemented a new model of Pay as you go, the company would now evaluate your average yearly usage of its API and charge you accordingly. In result the original work done by the company through deploying vehicles, sensors and camera's around the globe to capture road conditions, routes and visualizations of your surroundings provided novelty by eliminating conventional paper maps, but also deploying an API where other entrepreneurs could utilize in their applications. In and around 2004 Danish brothers Lars and Jens Eilstrup Rasmussen approached Google proposing searchable, scrollable and zoomable mapping leading to the introduction of Google Maps in 2005. Mapping for the consumer sector started to take off and feature sets started to pour in, Yahoo! hit the map sector first, Map-Quest added turn by turn directions, but then Google started to pour money and time into improving maps on an intricate scale with driving and public transport directions and eventually the famous Street View.

Regardless of the technology or feature at hand, mapping is a competitive business as one feature like street maps could drive revenue in and deflect external competition out--people want to see exactly where they are stopping. Google maps alone generates and estimated $4b a year from licensing and ads on its platform from various enterprise solutions that use its API. Thus, in the helm of intellectual property and ownership, mapping is always an ongoing effort. In order to bring value to market, one would need to propose novelty beyond doubt and possibly build upon existing infrastructure through improvements. Nevertheless, mapping if done correctly is a great licensing opportunity.

Soufflé Portion Cups—A brief

Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:51:00 +0000

When it comes to design and intellectual property…ideas, initial systems and engineering specs may change as the timeline and vision of the project progresses. Modifications may come in, change requests could be a dime a dozen, features could be approved or rejected. Given that all stages of design process are accepted and feature sets are allowed, IP will then notarize the work effort to ensure ownership is traced. However, throughout the IP supply chain we have seen all kinds of products, feature sets and designs where improvements and modifications exist after the fact rather then in it’s initial development stage.

Individuals and product users find ways to improve or “better use” original products made by others. The question may come up in some scenarios is, did the original designers of the invention already account for the alternative method or modification seen…or were they anew after the fact. Sometimes filings account for alternate uses, however they may be devised after the fact.

An example of multifunction IP that may have had only one or a few usability function is the “Soufflé Portion Cup.” We are all familiar with this packaging cup every time we use ketchup at our favorite restaurants. This cup shaped paper made product either enables the restaurant to eliminate plastic ketchup packets or allow’s customers to choose there own ketchup quantity by even having to reduce revisits to request more ketchup packets. When evaluating the construct of the Soufflé Portion Cup, we see a valuable design that facilitates a necessity in food delivery from kitchen to table in convenience, quantity, safety and spill prevention. Specific attributes that show novelty in design are the confounds of space vs size, temporary impermeable material to contain the sauce, structure that conforms to the business use case, as well as, reasonability in resource allocation and cost of manufacturing.

When taking into account all the factors that come together to produce the cup, we can see that novelty exists but one unique factor changes the way the cup may be used and / or adjusted. This alternate use has shown up in post hacks, modifications and tutorials and whether it’s original design accounted for the ability that has risen after the fact would either be in the filing claims or intended as the project originally kicked off—given it was an original design requisite or…maybe it wasn’t.

When looking at the Soufflé Portion Cup…it has connected panels on it’s side that are parallel to one another at each node at the top where such connections are tighten by paper to hold form and shape. Looking at various alternate uses and modifications in videos and tutorials, various users have shown methods where each panel may be pulled apart from one another increasing the radius of the cup thus allowing more space vertically and horizontally to contain ketchup. The unique analysis of this product and it’s plausibly in expansion raises the question:

Where does originality lay?

Did the original design specification account for the secure and sturdy form to contain and carry ketchup where this was achieved by connecting the vertical corner of paper to produce a cup…

Or…did the originator account for the fact that the corner connections offer sturdiness and form, but also provide the option of detachment (roughly 13 in total) to give the user the ability to expand it’s space based on usability preference—was is also meant for open expansion? The reason this analysis is important is because as the IP ownership world may be frustrating and complicated, novelty could exist in alternate forms of the same invention, as such, hacks and modifications could be considered new and novel based off the original design. In similar scenarios novelty becomes tricky in that if the originator did not take in account for the alternative method, the possibility of novelty could exist in the new design, however…given the practicality of the supply chain, materials and design, the alternative may not be as important. Also, this example would only facilitate the originator better as the hack is be applied after manufacturing.

Collaborative Kitchens. Where brands meet to compete.

Mon, 21 Mar 2022 20:28:00 +0000

As the demand for online delivery services increases due to convenience and other facilitating factors, proprietors have increasingly been working on creative models to either bring food and service to you, or to improve taste and ingredients with more modern and novel recipes. Although there are still a number of outlying issues with food delivery services—suffice to say in logistics and costs—it hasn’t stopped the foodie think tank from attempting to improve it’s fundamentals and drive business through its doors. We now have everything from mobile services delivery to cloud kitchens and centralized institutions where the busy circuit of mobile delivery can pick up items from a primary node to either make the logistics process more efficient or dig into alternate routes and strategies for delivery. With that being said, a topic other than your standard food delivery or cloud kitchen business model that has gained some importance, but may be a sincere possibility to entertain higher collaboration, reduce rental and leasing costs, and improve skill within the restaurant sector and staff are “Collaborative Kitchens.” Kitchens, restaurants and food establishments that have some how worked in an agreement to share each other’s resources, branding and marketing pipeline to reproduce signature dishes from your favorite restaurants locally where conventionally access and marketing may have be limited.

The concept of such kitchens allows proprietors to discuss and negotiate licensing deals with strategic partners to reproduce and cross sell original brands and / or food within the existing restaurant environment by allocating staff, resources, ingredients, sales, marketing and equipment to your partner(s) of choice. We have seen examples of this in the past with brands like KFC, Taco Bell, Long John Silver’s and others all under one roof. However, with the advent and implementation of mobile food delivery, customers now have a choice, and mom and pops and pop ups have an opportunity. With ease of access, collaborative kitchens may be able to cross brand, rebrand, remake signature dishes while training affiliates and new partners; all processes and experiences could be under one oven; over the same grill, and the use of the same refrigeration.

Examples of a Collaborative Kitchens could mean lowering operational costs, connecting approved trade ideas and trade strategies under one roof, partnerships, lowering overhead costs such as rent, equipment, supplies, insurance, leases and etc. Although the process would require research and good sales skills to get other brands and pop ups to sign on, it could bring new food experiences to people. It could also improve the ability of the establishment to pay its rent every month.

Example of collaborative kitchens could be:

A pop up collaborating with a local Italian place to train and supply their favored Mexican flavored dishes.
A local burger joint working with a pizza parlor to make and cross sell it’s burgers.
Two different restaurants under the same category exchanging skill to cross sell one another’s brand.
Online influencers and home cooks may work with local restauranteurs to cross sell creations and branding to local, state or international markets.
Shared recipes, facilities, lease agreements and rent under on roof to sell partnered brands, foods and experiences.
Exchanging skill, teamwork and tools for a division of profits and ownership.
Utilizing online food delivery services in the US and abroad to sell your food items.

The ideology of collaborative and shared kitchens outside of the cloud kitchen model would in essence improve food options, reduce distances in delivering food, improve skill and increase availability. Potential proprietors should always consult with local offices to see what rules and licensing are required.

Existing and prospective limitations in exterior automotive design. How patentability is limited, but may hold value.

Thu, 03 Mar 2022 04:13:00 +0000

Given the realm of the three possible patents one can file in the United States (Design, Utility and Plant) there are vast opportunities in product development patentability as predecessor product models change and modifications are needed to accommodate market needs—patentability is a necessity to secure and distinguish one’s individual work effort from another, thus the options to improve novelty always exists. One area of importance in patentability and novelty that could possibly see scarcity in innovation where the need for strategic intellectual property facilitation exists, is automotive design.

Cars, trucks, moving vehicles primarily in the consumer sector face strong limitations in design as there are many confounds that may limit concepts. The restrictions correlate to the success of a design and it’s consumer use, because of the many factors that may affect it’s practicality and use case within the market. As the convention of cars and automotive design have originated and evolved to transport people and things from one place to another, design in the automotive industry has always faced intellectual property overlapping, infringements, inaccuracies in design and / or lack of improvement due to limitations. Some of these include:

Lane sizes, road markings, gaps and openings where the use case may be implemented.
Terrain complexities and road conditions, simplicity in surroundings and other land mass variables.
The movement of people, the amount of people and objects within and around the vehicle’s surrounding areas.
Technological features both external and internal that must fit and work within the confounds of the vehicle.
Local, state and regional guidelines on how and where the vehicle may and may not operate.

These are only a few of of the obstacles vehicle design and engineering may face in order to bring a successful design to market, but the topic at hand is that the vehicle design industry is scarce in the context of prospective uniqueness and design strategy should be implemented long term. Unlike boats and aircraft where design have much more room for space and time—as you can technically build higher and wider—the automotive industry has horizontal and vertical ranges where design guidelines are limited thus affecting the design process and it’s patentability value giving good designers strong value in automotive design patents if done right.

Given the trend for the above this presents complexity in design in the automotive industry, good designers who understand vehicle limitations are needed to secure IP as multiple designs from one company to another may start overlapping and or hold discrepancies based on the confounds mentioned above. If this proves true, automotive design patents that proved 6 degrees of separation should hold successful in those patents as curves, edges, bend ability, inclinations, declinations, surface areas, extremities and other variables may produce overlapping designs, thus making it harder to compete.

Given the opinionated analysis above, industry experts could take value in improving their automotive design supply chain by understating that design IP in the context of the automotive industry is valuable as it may be highly competitive and limited due to such limitations. To ensure competitiveness, automakers should first acknowledge the limitations mentioned above through facilitation, to name a few:

Finding key designers who understand the confounds and limitations of moving vehicles for land based systems.
Hire top tier designers versed in “tool” design who should work side by side of head automotive designers to identify discrepancies in the design process.
Hire designers versed in object movement—sometimes bringing on board interns such as qualified food delivery drivers may help understand road conditions better.
Attain researchers that understand design shifts in the automotive industry from a human factors perspective.
Retain an IP specialist that can identify car design history assess it’s position of novelty. It would be beneficial if this specialist were versed in either industrial, mechanical and / or human factors engineering.

Given the car market is demanding, how these vehicles look from the outside distinguishes one work effort from another. Automotive patents have a litigative road ahead, unless the supply chain in design is innovated.

Underwriting, arbitration and litigation in IP. A really quick brief.

Wed, 26 Jan 2022 02:00:00 +0000

Intellectual property development, design and invention has historically rendered itself in various shapes and forms in all kinds of product lines and aspects of life. We have come far in the world on inventing, not only to improve our own bottom line, but also to give others the ability to reproduce and to profit through the distribution and resale of our IP development endeavors. Common law and IP law have blended hand in hand to identify boundaries and rule sets to where innovation stands, how one is rewarded, what to do when commonalities or overlapping occur to understand insight in the future of innovation is important. As mentioned in prior blog posts, IP is an important and vast field of objects that form outcomes, and how such objects act and interact define novelty and authenticity, however, we want to ensure the progress of innovation by not being penny wise and pound heavy at each node of development in anything we introduce, but rather deem the originator of reward and compensation for their work effort in such form that IP continues to push through the supply chain correctly.

Given IP debate, legality and decision making is never a perfect scenario and always a working effort to constitute the corrective methods and steps needed to ensure traceability is identified but also attempting to gather as many attributes as possible to link novelty, however we also look for the best method to push innovation to a point where it moves, it authenticates, prices stabilize and ownership is capped. But questions arise on what is the best method to ensure we are not greedy, inaccurately conclusive nor frugal on everything introduced from small to large in the IP depends on how we view and underwrite value lines. Currently, for US based notarization we’ve established first to file—given this method is still questionable and may need additional fine tuning, we invoke the ability to understand and question the filings thereafter in arbitration or court if questionable—the present future still renders newer ways and statutes to identify, authenticate and disperse IP ownership accordingly. One way this may happen is through AI driven identification of similarities and overlapping in design and formulas—whatever they maybe—from the beginning to end of the the supply chain structure may be calculated to cross check novelty.

First and foremost the goal of IP should be to push product development forward, but most importantly to negotiate and allocate the IP to the correct buyer for distribution, marketing and sales. It is the responsibility of the seller to ensure underwriting and evaluation is done correctly where this may also be done with the help of third party underwriters and brokers, the seller should understand that idea creation, prototyping and engineering are a small portion of the ladder work needed to be done in marketing and sales strategy to drive conversion, thus the terms of sale must be well defined with grace and aptitude—you won’t always get paid what’s best but you should go home with a decent lunch. Key attributes in IP identification, value, logic, terms and agreements may include:

Understanding that an extensive amount of work will need to be done in manufacturing, partnerships, sales and marketing even when the IP is sold.
Terms and licensing agreements must be well defined and agreed to before hand.
Arbitration and negotiation before litigation.
Sacrifices will need to be made on both buyer and seller side to get the IP to market but stills holds value to the originator.
Important value lines should be looked at to litigate IP rather than small infringements and infractions that state the obvious. Good IP is novel and traced to an inventor beyond a reasonable doubt.
IP is a constant work in progress, thus always good to insert a buffer or standard deviation for unknowns and pockets of error.

IP analysis of blind spot / blind area detection sensors on moving vehicles

Wed, 22 Dec 2021 19:21:00 +0000

Blind spot or blind area detection sensors are a normal yet creative feature on newer vehicles that help notify drivers and sometimes depending on use case, parallel vehicles when they are within the proximity of the driver. This sensor has some benefits in that ultimately it is a simple indication to the driver that there is an object to you’re left or to you’re right that signals an alert to not change lanes until it is safe, only when the moving object (vehicle) is outside the range of detection.

In the context of IP and patent differentials—identifying one feature from another in automative feature design is a good example to show engineering in architecture. The blind spot detection sensors with notifications primarily in the form of an LED light are one of many of the basic features on moving vehicles. Although not the most complex feature but simple in design and intricate at the surface level as designs can be distinguished from one rule set to another, blind spot sensors can be useful in some scenarios. Regardless of how the user is notified of blind spot obstruction, there are differentiating engineering attributes within these designs that designate how each works.

When looking at the different engineering aspects of blind spot detection sensors in IP analysis, one doesn’t necessarily need to only look at if the sensor works, but rather the timing and distance thresholds in sensor function in relation to object size, speed and proximity. The identification of these attributes are what indicate the attributes that vary from one design to another.

Pertaining attributes associated to lane change sensors to evaluate differentiating IP from another may include:

Distance

The distance from the activation node or threshold of the sensor’s trigger between your vehicle and the vehicle parallel to you.
The distance of the deactivation node or threshold of the sensor’s trigger between your vehicle and the vehicle parallel to you.
The numerical distance where two vehicles are separated in parallel to one another for the sensor not to pickup the object (an example of this can be demonstrated by moving to the right or left of a vehicle parallel to you to see how much space between the two will deactivate the sensor.
Motorcycles, moped, scooters, tall trucks and overlapping objects are also important impediments to evaluate. Sometimes moving objects overlap, thus what prerequisites identify overlapping objects to activate sensor trigger.

Although time could be one attribute to measure sensor activation / deactivation, the measurement of distance seems to supersede this attribute, however such features may exists in design. Nevertheless, the numerical values / thresholds of such architecture in design are what differentiate IP in blind spot detection sensors—there is a correct numerical value(s) somewhere in there.

New food options through creative cooking in local bodegas, food trucks and convenience stores.

Wed, 08 Dec 2021 21:02:00 +0000

Restaurants are adapting to changes in consumer demand, wants, needs and delivery methods by implementing variety based cooking and dining. Given there are many many options when it comes to food—and who doesn’t love food—there are always so many ways and times a person could eat a specific meal or dining option before they want something new. For example, the Big Mac is a delicious hamburger, one could eat that many times before they adapt to taste and price, but chains like Chipotle, Panda Express, and others have fantastic menu items but consumer demand is ongoing, people want to experience different foods, ingredients, and experiences to feather away from routine dining or a meal prep habit, not to mention the popularity of in home cooking, instructional videos and preparing and eating meals based on your own measurements and ingredient preferences. This being said, the competitive nature of food, food options, dining and the collective dining experience is constantly changing, especially during Covid days. One creative introduction going against the grain when it comes to food options and new dining methods are installed kitchens inside liquor stores, convenient stores, food trucks and possible places where edible food items are stored can be modified to make the dish of your liking based on the ingredients or items of your choice.

An example of this can been seen in many local based bodegas and mobile food trucks. You’ll find a conventional and traditional Liquor / Convenient store with an added grill and food storage equipment to facilitate your variety based meal needs. The concept behind this enables customers to get creative at there own liking by choosing any edible item(s) in the store and combining various foods and concoctions to create new sandwiches, salads, breakfast, and more. An example of this could be a burger and cheese between two Pop-Tarts, or an anchovies and cheddar cheese on spinach salad—the combinations in sweet and salty could go into the thousands. People are finding a liking to this in addition to there normal food routine, it also improves the cooks understanding of the different combinations of preference and may improve his or her mixing and matching skill.

Examples of this are also seen on food trucks, or pop up restaurants where the food or the cook have no specific menu or price but rather put things together based on your preference. Given these establishments are limited on ingredients and brands compared to a restaurant or bodega the concept is still fun and entertaining. There are also places where the menu has no price, the customer chooses what to pay but seating and interaction are limited.

Nevertheless, variety based experiences and settings are important factors in the food business. The important thing is that restaurants bring collaboration—a way to discuss, laugh, and think tank potential business ideas without the confounds and social boundaries at the office. It’s a initial stepping stone to bring ideas to life with chefs and concoction specialists renovating new flavor in taste, sights and sounds. The concept of the grab what you like and we’ll put it together provides insight on how ingredients and presentation will change, but also, how technology may work with the introduction of the Metaverse where people can acquire skills by grabbing objects and tools through access and combining them with other objects to build things.

Identifying substantiality in novelty in the IP approval process by using aromatic releasing capsule based Tobacco as an example.

Thu, 25 Nov 2021 05:04:00 +0000

A Bad habit, but good example when showing an improved deviation in novelty in the utility function of crushable aromatic capsules in filtered cigarettes AKA “Crush.”

Given smoking is a bad habit and could have negative affects to your health, we can however use this example of where this vice could teach inventors, R&D and IP analysts including decision makers how to identify novelty and “substantially” to improvements in product development and patent applications.

The historical nature of the cigarette has gone through various shapes and forms in terms of ingredients, taste and features in packaging, however with the advent of the “capsule” filled aromatic solution in cigarettes, these smokes now add flavor to the existing tobacco inside a cylindrical cigarette filter. These capsules are filled with aromatic solution once pressed or “crushed” release aromatic composition adding flavor to the tobacco. Is this Novel? Yes it is because it adds or facilitates a new method or option to enhance the flavor of the pack of cigarettes giving it a contemporary yet modern output that wasn’t there in the past. Conventionally, cigarettes are uniform in design—in that they are cylindrical and short, or cylindrical and long. Some have filters, some don’t, but in general, your differentiation is in ingredient combinations resulting in various flavor, strength and/or reactions. With the introduction of aromatic capsule delivery system, the IP provides the end user with the ability to control taste through a predetermined factor. Initially this feature was seen in Camel cigarettes branded under the name “Crush,” but slowly began to seep into various brands in the tobacco supply. The question is, where does novelty lie and where would an infringement occur?

Given the scenario at hand, one should know that smoking is harmful to your health and should avoid smoking to prolong a healthy life, but in the context of product development and IP analysis, we can use the aromatic capsule scenario in Cigarettes to show where novelty exists in the variation of aromatics, the delivery of such and in it’s new methods. The origination of the capsuled based cigarette is novel within it’s self based on the following attributes:

Provides an additional option to enhance or change existing conditions in the tobacco environment (cigarette).
Includes an added “design” feature to a pre-existing design that adds value in the context of use.
Yields a new or modified sensory experience through design and utility combining chemical composition to the tobacco.
Provides choice in use of the feature in the context of on/off for the end user that did not exist before.

We see similarities in other brands that’s have the same features. A majority of these brands use some type of capsule based aromatic release mechanism, some brands are either owned by a parent company and/or have licensed or collaborated on allowing the enhancement for distribution. Enhancements that may be considered valid—given the method of delivery is still capsule based—could be:

Brands that use the existing capsule technology have implemented a different aromatic capsule composition.
Brands that now use two or more capsule based cigarettes have modified the IP to enable the release of two or more possible combinations of aromatic compositions. An example of this may be seen in cigarettes that have two aromatic release buttons. This in turns provides novelty in that instead of 1 possible aromatic compositional release, you now have either no release, one release, a second release or the fusion or combination of all three releases. This gives you 4 possible combinations when conventionally you only had 1 or 2.

Needles to say, smoking is bad habit and not good to your health and should be avoided. But in the context of IP, novelty, and substantial improvement, the example of “Crush” based capsules that release aromatic compositions show IP novelty given the prerequisites above. It is important to note that the origination of capsule based release systems in the context of Tobacco links traceability to the first originator, leaving all succession as modifications off the original platform.

The front end anatomy of the progress bar

Mon, 08 Nov 2021 18:16:00 +0000

The progress bar is an indication of time to completion. It gives the end user the ability to make specific decisions for the task at hand. These could be:

A visual representation of time to completion for a specific task.
The delta or slope between progress in order to reach completion of a task.
Speed in relation to time of completion for when a task will reach 100%

From the above attributes, the user is able to understand the complexity of the system and or quality of programming for when a task is set to complete. General users may look at progress bars as a simple indication of what to expect will come next, how long it will take and how to plan along side the progress to completion with other related tasks. Progress bars come in many shapes and forms, but the ultimate objective is letting the user know that backend work is being done they cannot see by showing a visual representation of how long to wait. Some bars simply show % to completion, while others may present key notifications during the process such as “initialization” “buffering” “connecting” etc.

Progress bars are useful for simple scenarios but in complex engineering they can be more dynamic. As with anything, there is always the endeavor to make what is good better either with improvements, add-ons or simplifications. The acclimation of AI may even be integrated into progress bar notifications if the rule sets understand reasons for the averages in % attainment and why such progress notifications are needed. AI could even possibly support delays and improve progress if it were to understand user frustrations during loading and improve hold times by reevaluating to improve completion.

Whatever the use case may be, a simple feature such as a progress bar is important to let people and engineers know the system is working, thus to hang tight. More complex progress bars may even link the stage of completion to a more detailed check list. Ultimately, the basic progress bar we all look at when installing or update software or our phones seems a bit conventional—although it works, improvements may be useful.

As with any product, the use case for an intended progress bar is important. Given systems run various checks and balances, things such as internet speed, system specs, programming quality, compression, decompression, settings attributes, disk read/write speed affect progress bar reporting. In scenarios that require multiple amounts of files to be transferred a simple progress bar may not suffice. Overall, although useful, it’s good to take a look at existing and working progress bar types and identify improvements.

DABUS. Can Artificial Intelligence file for a patent?

Mon, 06 Sep 2021 16:38:00 +0000

Current legislature on patents and intellectual property design and development are limited in the area of whether machine is allowed to file patents. Various IP regulatory bodies are now working on understanding if Artificial Intelligence is allowed to own patents, trademarks and the intellectual property it develops through artificial means mimicking human behavior and thought. In recent news US regulatory law has blocked the ability for machine to invent and to claim ownership of an invention it is responsible for. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia has done just that by indicating that an invention cannot be owned by machine rather must be filed by a person and ownership traced back to a human.

The topic proves of importance in that as AI improves or advances, it’s ability to replicate or enhance human decisions may change various aspect of life, one being the development of new tools, objects, methods, designs and inventions. The USPTO has assessed the situation by understanding the circumstances, but will reject applications not submitted by humans—an individual must be the applicant stating AI has not reached the point where is ready to claim ownership on IP.

In a globally shared world where all types of skill sets work individually or collectively to produce or improve upon new things, the topic of non human inventors is very important in that when AI becomes capable of understanding the confounds of logic, it’s environment and how to modify the elements around it to produce innovation, kick starters, engineering and scientists are arguing that filings and ownership should be valid by machine. In a case called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of United Sentience)—an intelligent device with attributable strength in creativity—the machine was able to produce a beverage container. The application was rejected in the United States under the argument that AI is not at a point where it can be claimed by machine by artificial means.

Similar cases may arise soon as people work on AI technology day to day and improve rule sets and algorithms mimicking human behavior and decisions. Given the topic still needs further analysis and understanding, we do think that the USPTO’s inclination that “AI is not at a point to invent” is correct. Until we are certain for a fact that AI has the independent and cognitive ability to understand it’s inventions, these filings should be rejected unless an advanced design were to come out that collective bodies unanimously understand and approved on. Some attributes to validate this could be:

1. Machine learning adjusts algorithmic schemas based on use case (for what purpose the invention is being created) independent of the machine’s designer’s assistance. And if an assistance were to occur, it would know why such change is necessary.

2. Machine cognitively understands the use case for the intended invention.

3. Machine cognitively understands the historical evolution of the intended invention as predecessors may exist in different shapes and forms.

4. Machine simply understands why it’s inventing.

Given the above, a machine may still produce profoundly qualitative products, and could possibly even combine, align, realign and mix and match attributes far better than human ability, but it’s actions are a byproduct of human coding and editing—the machine’s designer has implemented the prerequisites to carry out specific functions. That itself traces novelty back to individual. In the example of DABUS, machine put together elements that collectively produced a “beverage container,” but raises questions on does that machine understand thirst, why the container is shaped the way it is to accommodate the hands, as well as, the the shape of the lip to accommodate the human mouth, including external and internal depths of wall thickness to safely house the container’s content.

It’s safe to say until AI understands it’s purpose from a cognitive and behavioral standing, IP filings should remain human. However, nothing prevents an individual to use his or her own AI design to help themselves improve calculations and provide better feedback on what’s being invented to file—kind of like a calculator.