Mentioning a public domain algorithm in a provisional patent application
July 16, 2016 6:21 AM Subscribe
I'm preparing a provisional patent application specification for a computer software containing multiple classes. One function includes a maze solver. There are many maze solving algorithms available online, and in fact the one I used in the software was also taken from the Internet.
I will present flowcharts for the functions in the classes. I have one block in a flowchart saying "Find position using maze solver".
In the detailed description I intend to state "Maze solving algorithms are available in the public domain and can easily be found and implemented by someone of ordinary skill in the art."
Will that be enough for the USPTO?
I will present flowcharts for the functions in the classes. I have one block in a flowchart saying "Find position using maze solver".
In the detailed description I intend to state "Maze solving algorithms are available in the public domain and can easily be found and implemented by someone of ordinary skill in the art."
Will that be enough for the USPTO?
If the maze solver is not the point of your invention, and/or any solver could be used, as long as it works, then you could probably even leave it out and just have a flow-chart box that says "maze solved using conventional algorithm, solution passed to next step..."
A provisional application is never examined or even published (at least until you file a regular application off it and that gets published). So the USPTO doesn't care what's in it.
When you eventually present claims in a utility application, the question will be, does your specification (including the provisional, if you claim priority to it) enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention you claim? If the maze solver would pose difficulty for that person, then you need to describe it.
posted by spacewrench at 7:22 AM on July 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
A provisional application is never examined or even published (at least until you file a regular application off it and that gets published). So the USPTO doesn't care what's in it.
When you eventually present claims in a utility application, the question will be, does your specification (including the provisional, if you claim priority to it) enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention you claim? If the maze solver would pose difficulty for that person, then you need to describe it.
posted by spacewrench at 7:22 AM on July 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
actually perhaps no to my suggestion. i don't know much about patents, but i guess that if you are specific then perhaps someone using a different solver would not be covered?
posted by andrewcooke at 9:33 AM on July 16, 2016
posted by andrewcooke at 9:33 AM on July 16, 2016
We've talked about this stuff before. You shouldn't be drafting these documents without having them reviewed and discussed with competent counsel before filing them in the PTO. Seconding spacewrench, basically.
posted by JimN2TAW at 9:18 PM on July 17, 2016
posted by JimN2TAW at 9:18 PM on July 17, 2016
« Older Why are my T-shirts getting holes in them? | Mirrored sunglasses (no, really *really opaquely*... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by andrewcooke at 6:32 AM on July 16, 2016 [1 favorite]