The Popsicle – Frank Epperson (11 Years Old)

In 1905, 11-year-old Frank left a flavoured drink mix outside with a stick he had used for stirring the concoction.  The next morning, after record lows, he came outside and noticed the drink had frozen to the stick thus creating a unique treat.  18 years later Frank patented the concept and two years later made a small fortune licencing the idea to the Joe Lowe Company in New York.

The Man-Can – Hart Main (13 Years Old)

Recently, 13-year-old Hart was getting sick of all those girlie smells from traditional candles.  This is when he came up with the idea of candles for men with scents such as Fresh Cut Grass, Sawdust, New Leather Mitt, etc. and used recycled soup cans to keep the product green-friendly.  The whole business started from only $100 that he earned delivering newspapers, flyers, and umpiring for local recreational sports leagues.

Ear Muffs – Chester Greenwood (15 Years Old)

In 1873, 15-year-old Chester was frustrated with having cold ears as he was ice-skating but didn’t like the bulkiness of a hat (he must not have wanted to mess up his hair for the young ladies!).  He shaped two small wires then got his Grandmother to sew fur patches on each side.  He then started selling tens of thousands of them to the U.S. Army in WWI.  Chester’s hometown of Farmington, Maine is known as the Ear Muff World Capital.  He passed away in 1937 as a very wealthy and successful man thanks to his 15-year-old ingenuity.

Conclusion

So next time your children come to you with an idea you think is crazy, it might be worth taking a second thought!

The post Successful Products Invented by Kids! appeared first on Mako Invent.

The Mako Invent designed and developed Tongue to Teeth product by Canadian inventors Adel Elseri and Sid Fayad is the most recent example of huge success in this, gaining exposure in just 24 hours on the Huffington Post, Edmonton Journal, Design Taxi, and even translated for a major Blog website in Russia, among a half dozen other places (and growing!). 

Have you ever had something stuck in your teeth that just drove you nuts or needed a quick brush after lunch?  Inventors Adel Elseri and Sid Fayad came up with a solution to this common problem most people face with their invention, the T2T (Tongue to Teeth) a tongue mounted tooth brush designed for hands free and convenient mouth maintenance.

They came to Mako Invent for help with their invention idea a few months ago.  We immediately loved the idea, and were impressed by the ambition and dedication of these two young men.  After meeting at our office downtown Toronto, Adel hired us to begin doing the research, conceptualization, CAD Design, rendering, rough prototyping, and eventually short-run manufacturing of the Tongue to Teeth product.

The T2T was designed to capitalize upon the range of movement of the tongue by means of a medical grade silicone sleeve which stays put by suction while raised peaks in specific areas clean the surfaces and crevices in between teeth, along with providing breath freshening in the process.  Most importantly, it was designed to be interesting, and it’s paying off by word of (fresh) mouth.

Here’s links to some of the blog articles on the world’s largest blogs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2296476/The-bizarre-hands-free-toothbrush-wear-TONGUE.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/21/tongue-to-teeth-would-you_n_2923422.html

http://now.msn.com/tongue-to-teeth-toothbrush-is-hands-free-weird

http://gizmodo.com/5991316/the-tongue-toothbrush-is-the-grossest-way-to-be-hygienic

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Tongue+mounted+toothbrush+ticket+Dragons/7976538/story.html

http://designtaxi.com/news/356613/A-Tongue-Mounted-Toothbrush-For-Hands-Free-Teeth-Cleaning-On-The-Go/

The post Mako Invent’s client’s product goes media viral in only 24 hours! appeared first on Mako Invent.

In its most basic sense, industrial design is a procedure that starts with an idea and ends with the manufacture of a product—not unlike the invention process. In fact, industrial designers work independently, or with clients, to develop and improve upon inventive and innovative solutions to everyday problems. They play a major role in conceptualizing product ideas, but their particular expertise lies in coming up with design solutions.

A product’s design encompasses its form, function and salability, all of which are addressed by industrial design. It is a practice that combines the realms of art, technology, engineering and business, and covers every aspect of product design, including; structural design and composition, overall usability, aesthetics and marketability.

An industrial designer begins a project by collecting data based on a product idea that requires developing. Next, the designer analyzes this data and draws from his/her individual bank of knowledge to come up with a design that considers both the product’s user and its manufacturer. By keeping both parties in mind, industrial designers give equal precedence to satisfying human and market needs. They pay special attention to human characteristics and closely follow market trends, which enable them to come up with all-around successful designs. The final product design is expressed using a series of detailed sketches and, perhaps, a virtual model.

These days, industrial design is fundamental to the product production process. Industrial designers, themselves, possess the creativity and expertise that is needed to improve upon existing products and novel solutions, thus setting a bar in the industry.

Moreover, because these products directly affect our economic and cultural exchanges, as well as the ways in which we interact with our surroundings, their design has innumerous and widespread implications. Our world relies on industrial designers to deliver highly effective, appealing, and sustainable solutions to common problems; and in doing so, it challenges them to enhance our standard of living.

The post Defining the Field of Industrial Design appeared first on Mako Invent.

Thus, many incarnations of brilliant ideas get reduced to mere dust collectors.

If you are about to complete the prototype stage or you already have a prototype that is collecting dust, try not to get stalled in the invention process. Your idea may be valuable and you’ve already put in a significant amount of work, so you should decide whether or not you are going to pursue your invention before it’s too late.

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is there already a product like yours in existence?
2. If there is, does your product provide a better or cheaper solution?
3. Is there a demand for your particular product?
4. What is your target market, and how large is it?

Your answers to these questions will help you determine whether or not your product might be worth pursuing onward.  If you feel confident about it and truly believe in its potential for success, your next step is to file for a provisional patent.  A provisional patent will allow you to associate the “patent pending” status with your invention, which will then enable you to begin searching for a way to sell or licence it.

Whether you want to license your invention or build a business around it to start selling physical units, some intellectual property protection is necissary.

Self-motivation and knowledge fuel the invention process and without them, ideas tend to get put on hold and forgotten about. Don’t get stuck in a standstill wasting your idea and your time on a dust collector. Wipe it off, give it some good thought and ask yourself, what’s next?

Once you’ve got IP protection, it’s now time to get that prototype out there to start making some money.  Ideally you will sort out your manufacturing base so that, when you show someone the prototype and they like it, they have the option to purchase an order of units.

Once you’ve got your manufacturing and IP protection, take your prototype and find potential buyers, licensors, wholesalers, retailers, traders, etc. to start getting your product onto store shelves!

The post Is Your Invention Prototype Collecting Dust? appeared first on Mako Invent.

Before the PPH program existed, inventors would need to file a separate patent application in each country where rights were desired even though the applications were basically identical.  This was because each country’s patent office needed to perform its own existing patent search and patentability examination.

The PPH program reduces the redundancies of these multiple similar patent examinations.  It allows applicants to use the favourable findings of the first patent office, known as the Office of First Filing (OFF), in order to expedite the patent examination in a subsequent office, known as the Office of Second Filing (OSF).  This makes the process both quicker and cheaper for the applicant.

When inventors take advantage of the PPH program a substantive examination of the application usually begins just two months after it enters the program, which is a fraction of the average typical delay of 25 months.  Moreover, the examination process itself is shorter and generally receives less Office Actions, which equates to less money spent on responding to these Actions. Plus, no government fees are required when requesting entry to the PPH program and the process is similar for all countries’ patent offices.

In addition to being faster and less expensive option, patent applications filed under the PPH program have a much higher acceptance rate than normal applications. As an example, patent applications submitted to the USPTO under the PPH program have an approximate 93 per cent approval rate, compared to the overall USPTO acceptance rate of 44 per cent.

The national patent offices involved in the PPH program include: Australia, Austria, Canada, the United States, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Spain, Unites Kingdom, Korea, Japan, Singapore, the European Patent Office and all the of the Patent Cooperation Treaty Offices (PCT).  Any of these offices are eligible to serve as an OFF or an OSF.

In order to be eligible to apply for a U.S. patent with the PPH program, patentable claims must have been found by the patent office of the initial country where the original patent application was filed. In addition, all claims must have a similar scope to those cited on the OFF application, and an examination of the application in the U.S. must not have already begun. Verified English translations of all claims must also be provided to the USPTO, along with a chart proving how the claims in the U.S. application sufficiently correspond with the initial claims. Furthermore, all the documents produced by the foreign office must be submitted with an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).

While the PPH program has obvious benefits, it also comes with a major drawback in the form of claims restrictions. Claims cannot be narrowed during the PPH prosecution unless those new limitations are present in one of the claims at the time the PPH request was granted. This means that any Office Action that deems a claim “unpatentable” cannot be responded to by narrowing the claims. New claim limitations can only be introduced by filing a continuation application, which requires additional time and money.

Overall, despite its downside that restricts claims from being reduced, the PPH program can be an efficient and effective method for obtaining patent rights in additional countries. Depending on the inventor’s strategy and the invention itself, it may very well be an option worth considering.

The post Obtaining a Patent in Multiple Countries appeared first on Mako Invent.

The chances of a successful amateur surgery are about equal to the chances of obtaining a patent without hiring a patent attorney. And yet, it is a common misconception that the art of patent writing can be self-taught. Many cash-strapped inventors attempt this very endeavor in order to save a few bucks and end up wasting their time.

To put it plainly, the myth that filing a patent can be done without an attorney is false. In truth, patent attorneys are among the highest trained attorneys out there. In order to work under the professional title, patent attorneys must first successfully complete law school and then pass a state bar exam that requires a scientific background. It’s not the profession for everyone, but those who pursue it are the ones you will want to be preparing detailed descriptions of your invention, which will inevitably grant you exclusive rights to precisely disclosed information.

Without a patent attorney, inventors take a huge risk. Furthermore, of all the exciting and potentially promising risks that can be taken throughout the course of the invention process, this is one of the most boring and irrational. Any inventor who tries to save a few hundred dollars by teaching themselves the in’s and out’s of the patent filing process is also missing the bigger picture. The cost of filing and obtaining a patent is usually very small in in comparison to amount of money that is later required to develop, market and distribute a new product.

If you are having trouble scraping together the funds necessary for filing a patent, think about how realistic it will be for you to start the process of commercialization afterwards. For an even worse and more likely scenario, imagine spending months or years studying patent laws and then filing a patent for your invention only to have it declined, leaving you back at square one.

Business risks should be reserved for exciting applications such as, trying out an innovative marketing strategy or launching a product in a foreign country. The patent filing game, on the other hand, should be played so the cards are always in your favour. A stubborn inventor can strategize by drafting a patent application, and a good patent attorney can make that application into a winner.

The post “P” is for Patents and Professionals appeared first on Mako Invent.

Here are the truths and explanations behind the most common patent misconceptions:

1. Provisional patents are Different from Full Patents

The name provisional “patent” can be very misleading because, in essence, it is completely different from a non-provisional, or “full”, patent.

Inventors often think they have obtained a full patent once they have applied for a provisional patent.  In reality, what they have done is submitted a provisional patent application (PPA), which is a temporary 12-month protection period for that product, as opposed to 17+ years for a full patent.

It is for this reason that it’s so much cheaper to file for a provisional patent, and usually a good idea for the home inventor once you have completed professionally developing your product. What an inventor receives from a PPA is the ability to use the phrase “patent pending”, which can be helpful in business situations, such as negotiating licenses or selling to the market.

2. Not all patents are valued equally

It’s the unfortunate or very fortunate truth, depending on what patent(s) you own rights to. Not all patents are worth the same amount of money, which means quality—not quantity—rules.

As an example, two massive companies may merge and combine to become the single owner of the largest number of patents. This; however, doesn’t indicate inevitable market domination. Just one single patent can be worth more than thousands of other patents combined.

For example, the company Pfizer pulled in more than $11 billion in just one year with its patent on a cholesterol pill. With that in mind, it’s easy to understand why a single patent can generate more revenue and have more value than a combination of other patents.

3. Claims are very important

Perhaps the most important aspect of a patent application is the claims. The set of claims is drafted in order to define the invention and make claims to its novel characteristics. In the end, whatever claims are issued will define the rights that the owner of the patent possesses and protect those rights from the infringement of others.

Not only are the claims of utmost importance, they also comprise the most complicated portion of the patent application. Claims language has many rules and is steeped in technical and specialized terms, so it does not resemble natural language. The claims portion of a patent application is usually negotiated between a Patent Attorney and a USPTO examiner, and that dialogue is called “Office Action”.

In most cases, the final claims that get issued are different from the original claims. This means that submitting well-defined claims in the beginning can save an inventor a lot of money because it can prevent unnecessary Office Action, which requires hiring a Patent Attorney.

4.  Time, money and effort are necessary

It’s the truth; time, money and effort are required for getting a patent, and sometimes, you need a lot of each. Preparation, both mental and financial, is key.

Starting with time, it takes an average of about two years for the first Office Action to appear after filing a patent application. Moreover, it takes an average of approximately three years to have that patent granted or denied. Of course, new laws and measures that aim to reduce these timeframes are constantly being adopted, but it is important to realize the scope of time that may be required.

Money is next. Most inventors do not succeed in obtaining a patent on their own, which means they need to hire assistance. In addition to filing and issuing fees, the inventor will need to pay a Patent Attorney to respond and counter Office Actions. An inventor can expect several Office Actions in addition to a USPTO examiner telephone interview.

Furthermore, obtaining patent rights in other countries costs extra money. Inventors can apply for protection with the 142 member countries of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), but the application must be nationalized in each country and it is subject to further filing fees, prosecution and wait times. Internationally recognized patent coverage can end up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars throughout the life of just one patent.

Finally, once the total scope of time and money is understood, the necessary effort required to obtain a patent becomes obvious. The process is not easy, fast or cheap, indicating that various levels and types of effort are involved. The best strategy is to learn the process thoroughly and be prepared to put in the amount of effort needed to cover each aspect..

5. Patentabilty cannot be guaranteed

Even with a patent, there is no guarantee that it will hold up in court, which is the purpose of it.  Of course, it does significantly increase your ods; however, it is important to understand that it is not an absolute guarantee.

In general, more complex inventions have a better chance at having a patentable aspect since the claims can be narrowed down to cover precise novel nuances.  Such precise protection; however, may be an easy target for a competitor to work around and design a better product with the same function.

Similarly, an invention may be patentable, but its claims might not be broad enough to protect it in the competitive commercial market. In such a case, the measure and value of an invention’s patentability many also depend on the ability of a Patent Attorney to evaluate the commercial potential of a product.

Conclusion

In generaly, filing a Provisional Patent or Full Patent is generally a good idea for invetors; however, expert advice should be saught first.  Also as a rule of thumb, one should first research and develop their product first prior to patenting, to ensure that your patent protection is based on the most likely end-version of your product.

The post The Truth About Patents appeared first on Mako Invent.

For an inventor, these shows offer a fast and easy way to meet and learn about professionals in specific industries. This type of schmoozing is beneficial to inventors at any stage of the invention process, but can be particularly useful for those who are looking to sell an idea or find investors for their invention. Listening to key decision-makers can influence an inventor’s strategy; and exchanging business cards can lead to future meetings or agreements.

A savvy inventor shouldn’t stop at trade shows, though. Like all good things, trade-related opportunities come in threes. Inventors should attend trade shows, advertise in trade publications and familiarize themselves with trade associations.

Trade associations usually feature a directory of members containing the names and contact information for the top executives in a particular industry. This gold mine of personal information can be useful for contacting companies when seeking investment for an invention, for example.

Trade associations are also usually in charge of trade publications, which can be used to advertise an invention. These publications generally accept freelance submissions and by reading their submission guidelines and preparing a well-written pitch, an inventor can publicize a new product within their pages. Additionally, just by reading trade publications, inventors can keep a close eye on competition and stay abreast of new innovations in a particular industry.

It is very important for inventors to take advantage of these three industry platforms, especially trade shows; the royal galas of industry. Rain or shine, if there’s any date an inventor can’t miss it’s a trade show; the ultimate opportunity to schmooze.

The post Taking Advantage of Trade Shows appeared first on Mako Invent.

In addition to the typical forward-facing trigger, their new spraying mechanism features a secret trigger that juts out from the back of the nozzle. Both triggers must be pressed in order for the liquid to dispense, and a child’s hands are too small to manage them simultaneously.

It’s not the first attempt to enhance the safety of the common household spray bottle, but it is the first solution that may actually fulfill its function. Other spray bottles have been designed with a switch that restricts the flow of liquid, but children have proven their ability to manipulate these types of nozzles leading to harmful results.

This new spray bottle design may actually live up to its child-proof description and has the potential to save up to 6,000 children from spray bottle injuries each year. A study of child injuries caused by household cleaners revealed that these types of injuries have decreased significantly over the last 20 years, but the number of spray bottle-related injuries, specifically, has remained constant. Spray bottle injuries have actually accounted for 40 per cent of all the child household cleaner injuries between 1990 and 2006.

The study was conducted by Lara McKenzie and her colleagues at the Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Ohio and was released in 2010. In addition to the results of the study, McKenzie discovered that their research revealed a need in the consumer market for a spray bottle that was both easy for adults to use and difficult for children to employ.

McKenzie and her colleagues joined forces with researchers in the Ohio State University’s department of design and engineering to create this innovative spray bottle. The group has filed for a patent and is currently looking for a company, such as a cleaning product manufacturer, to license their product.

Judging by the valuable medical research that reveals a market need while simultaneously giving credit to this new spray bottle design, it seems likely that these researchers won’t have much trouble finding a licensor. And while securing a license may turn out to be a rewarding achievement for these professionals, hopefully the children whom their product aims to save will be the ones who benefit the most.

The post Spray Bottle Innovation Aims to Save Children appeared first on Mako Invent.

Here are the most common patent filing errors:

1. Failed to First Develop the Invention

One of the most common errors that we see is that inventors do not first complete the research and development of their product prior to patenting it.  This would be like buying wheels for your bike before you figured out which bike you wanted to buy – The likely scenario is that you will end up with the perfect bike, but with a set of a wheels that either doesn’t fit, are longer applicable, or are for a different model.  The bigger problem with the Patent is that you may have also just prevented yourself from patenting the final version of your product, as any of the prior claims would impede your current claims.

Therefor, it is extremely important to do at least the Design and Engineering portions of your development to ensure that your patent is very close to the product which eventually hits the market.

2. Sold the product on the market too early 

For those pursuing a U.S. patent, the one-year rule is an important law to be aware of.  The law gives inventors 12 months to file a provisional or non-provisional patent application after the first sale has been offered.  Thus, if you do a small manufacturing run and decide to put an ad online offering the product for pre-sale, you have 12 months from when you put that online to obtain IP protection.

If a patent application is not filed one year after the first sale of the invention, any rights to the invention are forfeited and the idea becomes common property, never to be patented by anyone. It is important to know about this U.S. law and to understand that it is, in fact, the most lenient in the world.

The rest of the world (including Canada) requires inventions to be completely novel before the first one is sold, which makes it illegal to patent an invention after the first sale. So, if you’re applying for a Canadian patent or you’re planning to obtain foreign patent rights, it is best to refrain from selling your invention until you have submitted a thorough patent application, or Provisional.

3. Used the invention publicly

Any public use of the invention before filing a patent is subject to the same rules as selling or offering to sell the invention.  Basically, don’t use your invention publicly if you plan to apply for a Canadian patent or foreign patent rights.

4. Filed a poor provisional patent application

Many inventors make the mistake of filing badly composed provisional patent applications.  These can be rejected later on and foil an inventor’s attempt to protect their invention.

Furthermore, it is common for an inventor to assume that they have obtained a “patent pending” status just by filing a provisional patent application. This can have disastrous effects because provisional patent applications are not always accepted, nor are many of them ever upgraded to a full patent.  A bad provisional patent application may be rejected and if the inventor fails to verify this; they may further jeopardize the opportunity to obtain rights for their invention by selling it or using it publicly.

Conclusion

All of these mistakes are easy to avoid, but result in grave consequences when committed. It is important to understand and learn from them in order to avoid losing your chances at obtaining a patent altogether.

The post Avoid Common Patent Application Mistakes appeared first on Mako Invent.