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