Category: Examiner of Silly Patents

Examiner of Silly Patents 3: Monkey thermometer

To take a break from all the gloom and doom of the last few week’s blogs, here is a different kind of look at patents. Very different.

Every now and then I will take a silly patent and pretend it isn’t silly. I will analyze and defend it in all faux-seriousness (see disclaimer at the end).  Usually I cannot defend it, but learn something in the process anyways.

From 1987, US 4,634,021 (Release mechanism) has a self-explanatory picture.

“A release mechanism is disclosed for releasing an object such as a ball from a body under the force of gravity. A bimetallic element obstructs or opens an opening in the body for retaining or releasing the object depending upon the temperature of the bimetallic element. The release mechanism may be incorporated into a novelty “brass monkey” for “emasculating” the monkey when the temperature decreases to a predetermined temperature at which the balls in the “brass monkey” are permitted to drop to a base which is designed to produce an audible sound when struck by the balls”.

I always try to give positive feedback and constructive criticism. In this particular case, the positive feedback is immediate and obvious. Anyone with the self-confidence to eternally attach his name to a drawing like this deserves our respect. Strength through goofiness.

On the constructive criticism side, there is more to be said. I believe that the inventor did not choose an optimal strategy to protect his excellent idea of using an emasculated monkey as a thermometer.

In my view, by patenting the inventor divulged too much information and gave the competition an unnecessary advantage. He opened his strategy, without really protecting it. Fundamentally, there seem to be too many workarounds around this patent.

For example, this patent most likely does not cover other animals. Castrating a donkey to tell the temperature would almost certainly be possible despite this patent. Using a human being would potentially lead to a court case. The arguments would revolve around whether a human being is biologically simian enough to be considered a special case of a monkey. I hesitate to speculate how that court case would end.

There are also non-testicular extensions of this idea which could have been pursued in the patent. In particular, something like a system with a French Revolution theme could present a similar user experience: when it gets cold, Marie Antoinette’s head is chopped off with a clang. This patent does not prevent such a user interface from being implemented.

There are also technical workarounds.  A bimetallic temperature valve is well-known. However, if the bimetallic valve were to be replaced by a sphincter-like structure, it is probable that the patent would not cover it.

What about the business case?  It is possible that this patent has indeed hit a niche which has not been extensively filled. I did not really find anything in the patent literature that would imply that this is a major technology area.

A Google search for “novelty thermometer” shows examples of today’s state of the art. I believe the figure below has some commonality in spirit with the patent. A rectal thermometer in a duck is used to measure bath water temperature. It is an unexpected combination.

Source: Screen capture.

I believe that a design patent to cover just the monkey implementation could have been more cost-effective.  Design patents are cheap to file and have no maintenance fees; on the other hand, they are only valid for 14 years against a utility patent’s 20 years. Alternatively, the inventor could have tried to broaden his patent significantly to cover other animals and user interfaces. That would, however, have raised the costs.

I strongly suspect that the inventor did not manage to make money from this patent. However, that does not in any way detract from the inventive step of this patent; one would not expect the see a thermometer implemented by using the clangs caused when a brass monkey is neutered and its testicles fall off.

Although an engineer type should never venture into aesthetics, I want to say something about artistic values. I find something poignant yet majestic about the figure of the monkey. This is almost worthy of a monument. If I had been the inventor — though I may be alone in feeling this — but if I had been the inventor, I think this figure would make an excellent gravestone. Why not? What could be a better memento for future generation to remember me by? Strength through goofiness is something to celebrate, throughout the generations.

All Examinations of Silly Patents: click here. 

Disclaimer: these analyses have very little to do with anything, and in particular have nothing to do with legal issues. Most of the patents cited are expired (or should be). I do not touch the “claims” section, which is the legally relevant part. These blogs constitute prior art, so that any new any ideas expressed here can no longer be patented.

Examiner of Silly Patents, Part 2: Motorized ice cream cone

Every now and then I will take a silly patent and pretend it isn’t silly. I will analyze and defend it in all faux-seriousness (see disclaimer at the end).  Usually I cannot defend it, but learn something in the process anyways.  Suomeksi: klikkaa tästä.

US 5,971,829 from 1999: Motorized ice cream cone. ” A novelty amusement eating device for supporting, containing, rotating and sculpting a portion of ice cream or similar malleable food while it is being consumed compromising: a hand-held housing, a cup rotatably supported by the hand-help housing and adapted to receive and contain a portion of ice cream or food product of similar consistency, and a drive mechanism in the hand-help housing for imparting  rotation upon the cup and rotationally feeding its contents against a person’s outstretched tongue.”

For some reason, this patent seems to be in almost everyone’s all-time lists of crazy patents.

The invention is similar to two earlier patents: US 5,209,692 for a spinning piece of hard candy and US 5,536,054 for a wobbling lollipop. The inventor, however, argues that neither of these is relevant, since “neither of these devices adequately serves as a means for consuming softer, more malleable foods such as soft ice cream, yogurt, or pudding.” It therefore seems that there have been good grounds for granting this patent.

A bit of analysis shows that this is actually a heavily patented field; the older patent 5,209,692 has been cited in 44 newer patents between 1994 and 2009,  including US 5,7500,981 for an ear-cleaning device. The newer US 5,536,054 has been cited in 22 other patents, including US 5,676,988 for a U.F.O. pop.  The competition in this field is cut-throat, in other words.

Patenting in the ice cream cone business is nothing new; an article What’s Cooking America by Linda Stradley mentions at least four patents before 1925 alone.

IDFA reports that about 1.52 billion gallons of ice cream are sold in the US per year (5.7 billion liters in human-readable units). The report does not cite exact figures for numbers of cones sold, but it is in the hundreds of millions.

Patenting is all about money. The patent makes sense if   a) many people want to use one of these contraptions    b) they are willing to pay for them.

The cost of getting a patent  could be estimated to be about 10,000 USD (based on estimates here). It is not really possible to estimate the cost of making a cone like this, but some ballpark estimates can be based on similar devices.  I would make a ballpark estimate of 4 USD per cup. This would be unacceptable for a disposable cup, but would people be willing to pay say 5 USD? A profit margin of 5% would mean 25 cents per cup.

The most likely place to sell these would be amusement parks. About 300 million Americans visit amusement parks each year. It is not completely absurd to expect 1/3 of them to buy an ice cream cone. However, a huge majority will of course buy just a normal ice cream. If even one percent buy a novelty cone, there would be a potential of 1 million customers for novelty cones.

In practice, this market would be fragmented among many amusement parks and manufacturers. A 10% share in almost any market would be huge, but assume that these cones achieve that share. That is 100,000 cones per year. With the 25 cent profit, this means a profit of perhaps 25,000 USD per year.

If the patent can be enforced, this means that the cost of patenting would be offset well within the first year of sales. It is a completely different question whether the cones as such are a good business; however, patenting them would certainly make sense.

The figures above may be exaggerated, but they are probably in the right ballpark. The more crucial point is that it will have been possible for the inventor to make such calculations; and it may well have been a valid business choice to go ahead and patent.

In other words, there is nothing stupid about this patent. Silly yes, but not stupid. Ice cream is a huge business, amusement parks are a huge business; combine those two, and there is plenty of room for small novelty items. I have no idea whether the inventor has made any money on this patent. But even if he lost, there is nothing shameful in it. He could equally well have succeeded.

In cases like this, my attitude tends to be: it’s easy to laugh, but what have you done lately? At least the inventor tried. Hats off for him!

Full set of Examinations of Silly Patents: click here.

Disclaimer: these analyses have very little to do with anything, and in particular have nothing to do with legal issues. Most of the patents cited are expired (or should be). I do not touch the “claims” section, which is the legally relevant part. These blogs constitute prior art, so that any new any ideas expressed here can no longer be patented.

Examiner of Silly Patents, Part 1: Subliminal eyeglasses

Jakke Mäkelä

Every now and then I will take a silly patent and pretend it’s not silly. I will analyze and defend it in all faux-seriousness (see disclaimer at the end).  Usually I cannot defend it, but learn something in the process anyways. [Suomeksi/Finnish: Patenttimörökölli, osa 1]

One excellent resource for crazy patents is here.  Some of them would not make sense even in a parallel universe, but some of them can be explained. Up to a point.  I will start with one that I find endearing:  US 5,175,571 from 1992: “Glasses with subliminal message”. The idea, in short, is to project subliminal messages onto the glasses of the user (for more information on subliminal stimuli, see here).

The patent mentions (without citing sources) that subliminal messaging has been used successfully in the form of audio tapes and “can have significant results in producing character and behaviour improvement …. [and] are also said to produce greater success in business or in personal relationships or in sports”.

The novelty of the invention is that “similar if not better results can be obtained from subliminal-type suggestion, to which the subject is exposed more or less on a continuous basis even while he is engaged in other activities.”  The subconscious images can be either printed onto the glass, or removable disks can be used. The messages can be words, or “for persons with a personality problem such as an inferiority complex or a persecution complex, the graphics might simply be a single face, with a happy smile”.

Indeed. Nevertheless this is a credible patent! Even if subliminal messaging has not been proven to work, it is not physically impossible. (Physically impossible ideas, such as perpetual motion machines, cannot be patented even in the United States).The patent has been cited in later patents, including a design patent for pet sunglasses. There is nothing technically wrong with it.

The minor catch? Subliminal messaging  does not work.

However, I see a way to extend the idea. There are very narrow cases  where subliminal messages affect behavior. A weak effect was seen when a thirsty user had to choose between two equivalent  types of soft drink. Subliminal messages at the exact right moment can influence the choice of brand.  The effect is probably very small, but for a manufacturer even a tiny effect might be worthwhile, since in general advertising is not very effective.

What is needed to make US 5,175,571 work? The application needs to focus on advertising rather than psychological well-being. Take soft drinks. A manufacturer could purchase “space” on the glasses. The glasses need to be context-aware, to know when the user is near the soft-drinks section of a store. This is challenging but doable, for example by including a tiny camera within the glass frame and analyzing any bar codes that the camera manages to catch, or perhaps by using an RFID reader.

There are even more possibilities if the stores collaborate. Put a  Bluetooth receiver in the glasses, and Bluetooth transmitters in the store that identify the aisle. When the glasses detect that the user is at the soft-drink aisle, the subliminal ad is projected to the lenses. Thus the user gets the subliminal message at the only time when it can make a difference: at the exact moment of choice.

Even this version of the patent is silly, of course. Technically speaking, subliminal advertising is illegal in many countries. Even if the legal issues can be ignored: why on earth would anyone agree to wear such glasses?

In principle my attempt is a failure: I simply replaced one silly patent with another silly patent. But still I believe that the exercise was interesting. Things are not always what they seem to be.

Full set of Examinations of Silly Patents: click here.

Disclaimer: these analyses have very little to do with anything, and in particular have nothing to do with legal issues. Most of the patents cited are expired (or should be). I do not touch the “claims” section, which is the legally relevant part. These blogs constitute prior art, so that any new any ideas expressed here can no longer be patented.

Translate »