The PTP Choke.

[rabidchihauhau]

How long does the patent last? There is a limit to how many years a patent can exist. Right?

21 years in all but special cases.

Bravo,

and everyone else interested.

Patents, once granted or abandoned, become available to the public. A relatively recent change in patent law also makes many APPLICATIONS available for viewing.

You can visit www.uspto.gov to find all of the granted patents (from 1782 or thereabouts on);

You can search all patents and many applications. (The patent applicant is allowed to request privacy until granting if they so choose, so not all applications are available)

The quickest and least effective way to search is by keyword (such as paintball), the name of an assignee (such as Smart Parts), and inventor (such as Simon), etc.

The most effective way to search for a specific patent is by number. For searching for all designs of a similar nature, by patent class. MOST paintball related patents are found in just a handful of classes (firearms and related, balls and related).

To find out how the patent office does searches, find the copy of the patent examiners manual (on the site) and or the list of classes and related classes.


manual of patent examining procedure: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep.htm

manual of patent classification: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/

patent class numbers and titles: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/cla...mwithtitle.htm

to get an idea of the classes used for paintball related inventions, do a word search for "paintball"; then look under the class field. then go do a search by class - then have fun wading.

Here's class 042 (firearms) and its definitions and related subclasses: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/cla...42/defs042.htm

042/124 is a class and subclass frequently found for paintball markers.

Have fun.

[phantomhitman]

brian hurts, stop with all of this useful posting.

[rabidchihauhau]

brian hurts, stop with all of this useful posting.

You think your brain hurts now?

Check this application out.

Note a couple of things: this applicant claims the priority of three provisional applications - all dated more than one year older than his formal application - formals based on provisionals must be filed by the anniversary date of the provisional, in this case, by March 12th, 2005. His formal was filed September, 2005.

If that wasn't enough - this guy claims the entirety of facemasks.

"1. A method of using a face protector, comprising: providing a face protector including a lens and a face plate configured to protect the forehead, eyes, cheeks, jaw, chin, mouth, ears, and nose of a user without protecting substantially the remainder of the user's head; applying the face protector to the user's head; wearing the face protector during an activity; removing the face protector after the activity."

Background: "Current products on the market including, but not limited to, motorcycle helmets, snowboarding helmets, ski helmets, etc., all are meant to protect the entire head from falls or injury to the entire head and not used solely for front head and face protection. All are comprised of some type of hard material, are full-shelled helmets, are not compactable, and do not allow for efficient stowing, storage. These helmets are also heavy and are susceptible to mildew when used in wet environments and not dried or stored in dry environments (e.g., boats)."

Jeez. Either he's clueless, or this is a joke. All claims except the first one are dependant - so if the first claim is disallowed, he's out the window.

If you want to attack fallacious patents, here's the perfect one.

[phantomhitman]

Check this application out.

Note a couple of things: this applicant claims the priority of three provisional applications

you lost me already
I have seen bs applications before, but does anyone have a patent for a paintball facemask? If not they guy is smart even though he is so dumb.

[rabidchihauhau]

you lost me already
I have seen bs applications before, but does anyone have a patent for a paintball facemask? If not they guy is smart even though he is so dumb.

yes.

tn had one for the original vents
v-force/procaps has at least one for the quick change system

More than likely this is an application from someone who will now go and try to sue all and sundry for infringement - or, better yet, pay me and I'll abandon the application.

Probably good for a couple of 10k nuisance checks

A provision application is a relatively new thing; someone who needs protection while they are looking for a business partner would apply for one, as an example. It gives them a year's worth of patent pending status (no guarantee of getting a patent though).

If a formal application based on the provisional is filed within one year of the filing of the provisional, the 'priority' (date the patent is good from) becomes the provisional filinig date, not the year later date of the formal application.

BTW: Now that I'm no longer at pro-team, I'm free and clear to offer my IP services to all and sundry. Please note - I am not a patent attorney, nor an attorney of any kind. I have a year of law school under my belt (making more dangerous than someone who's passed the bar). I do know when to say 'call in the experts'.

If you're looking for someone to help with searches, preparing provisional applications, writing of descriptions and summaries and even suggested wording for formal claims, I'm available for a fee.

I have successsfully obtained numerous patents for myself and others; I have a good track record of finding holes in the existing patents and, perhaps the best endorsement I'll ever get for this kind of work: someone over at the whiteboard said that I was 'scummier than SP' or words to that effect.

Don't send me concepts or designs - we need to sign an NDA first, you need to then give me a sumnmary of what it is and then I'll let you know if I can work on it or not.

[nicad]

... As your IP attorney can tell you, there are such things as 'continuations in part'.

Are you inferring that there were more claims in the original filing that were split off into a divisional application because the USPTO felt that the content of the extra claims were too far out of scope to be included all in one application (#6,802,305)? Wouldn't that lend credibility to the fact that the content of those extra claims is indeed not granted coverage by patent #6,802,305?

[phantomhitman]

nicad...........go argue in pms because this is going to give me nightmares. I wish I could understand the process of the application process and what is and what is not allowed. I am just going to go sleep now.

[edweird]

not directed at anyone:

as stated before he dont use pm's cause its to much of a bother...

and frankly I think it is far to important to remove from the public eye.

P.S. if the tech/legal jargon hurts anyones "postcount +1" intellect might I suggest http://www.pbnation.com (no offence to the fine ppl I do know from pbn, but a kiddy pool is just that, a kiddy pool)

/ptp to come to grasp they will never put out the pneuframe
//nicad to win
///nicad to sell me the first production hAir frame
////line to form behind me

[BigEvil]

The sad part about this, is that by time all of the legal manuvering is done, and all of the legal fees payed... whomever ends up actually producing this frame will face the harsh reality that the market for this product is not vast - and, that the demand for it in what market does exist will be low.

I can't see PTP making a dime in profit off of this unless they sell MINIMUM 1000 units. (And that is probably a low estimate)

I also cant imagine anyone that hast to fight for the legal right to make this, or, pay a licencing fee, make ANY money off of anything less that 3000 units.

These numbers are off the top of my head, calling from my experience in dealing with some parts of the manufacturing industry. For example, I know for a fact that if you are looking to produce something, or even outsource the production of something, no one wants to talk to you unless your minimum run starts at 1000 units.

Can anyone in their right mind see 3000 mags with P-frames?

[11 Bravo]

I wonder how many mags are being used now? If this frame came out I am sure more Mags would be used regularly. If AGD would put it on new markers for sale I am sure sales of Mags and the frame would go up. But I have no idea what AGD sales are or how many people would upgrade their existing mags. Besides knowing AGD annual sales you would have to have an idea of how many Mags are being used and how many owners would want to upgrade. If AGD doesnt offer it on their new Mags I dont see how PTP could justify making them. It wouldnt be worth their time to do it and only sell 20 units.

I vote that they work something out with AGD - then I could see it making since.

Maybe the people wanting these frames should contact AGD and let them know how much its wanted.

[Muzikman]

In order for AGD to sell another gun that had the popularity of the Mag in the 90's it would have to be;

Blowback
Lighter than air
Shoot 90bps
Never chop or break a ball (EVER!)
Be low pressure (I mean an input of like 50psi)
Be able to get 20,000 shots off one 45/3000psi tank
Get 100,000 shots from one 9v battery
Cost $199.99
And not call it a Mag

Though that is getting off the subject again.

The hAir is a great idea, it's currently 2 years too late. AGD knows it, DW knows it and PTP knows it. I will be shocked if we actually see a gun with this "Patented" technology be successful.

[Lohman446]

In order for AGD to sell another gun that had the popularity of the Mag in the 90's it would have to be;

Blowback
Lighter than air
Shoot 90bps
Never chop or break a ball (EVER!)
Be low pressure (I mean an input of like 50psi)
Be able to get 20,000 shots off one 45/3000psi tank
Get 100,000 shots from one 9v battery
Cost $199.99
And not call it a Mag

Though that is getting off the subject again.

The hAir is a great idea, it's currently 2 years too late. AGD knows it, DW knows it and PTP knows it. I will be shocked if we actually see a gun with this "Patented" technology be successful.

Skip propane, CO2, HPA etc - there going to make it so low pressure that the movement of the ball in the HALO stack will create enough pressure to fire the marker... 15PSI input pressure... (what, atmospherice pressure is 14.7ish?)

[dahoeb]

Skip propane, CO2, HPA etc - there going to make it so low pressure that the movement of the ball in the HALO stack will create enough pressure to fire the marker... 15PSI input pressure... (what, atmospherice pressure is 14.7ish?)

hahaha. i can't believe nobody has thought of that till now!

[SCpoloRicker]

Can I get it in a rasta fade?

[rabidchihauhau]

Are you inferring that there were more claims in the original filing that were split off into a divisional application because the USPTO felt that the content of the extra claims were too far out of scope to be included all in one application (#6,802,305)? Wouldn't that lend credibility to the fact that the content of those extra claims is indeed not granted coverage by patent #6,802,305?

Nicad, who's writing your posts, you or your attorney? LOL

here we go with numbers and letters again:

1. I am not inferring anything
2. Ask for an explanation of the differences between a divisional application and a continuation-in-part
3. Ask for an explanation of priority in regards to the same.
4. I've said as much as I'm going to say; despite the fact that I no longer work for PTP, I still have personal and ethical reasons for not wanting to be involved in starting someone down the path of trying to get around the patent.
A. because I honor my word
B. because I do not want to be responsible for someone wasting a ton of money and time

Here's another way to look at things:

Tom and presumably his IP folks looked at this IP
K2 and their IP folks looked at this IP
The %*^$@&$ PTO examiner granted this IP
I personally made an early attempt to license this IP and was not rejected; the reasons a license were not granted were reasonable and understandable, I accepted them in good grace and am waiting the period of time suggested before revisiting the issue.

What do I know - I've only helped create good IP or helped cut down bad IP - so I guess not much.

My marching orders at the time were to only work on 'legitimate' IP - not some of the fallacious bs we've seen over the past several years. In the long run, broad, weak claims are just an invitation to losiing your shirt to a competitor.

The real - and only - solution to an IP roadblock is to design your way around it. Afterall, that's one of the purposes of the whole patent thing, to spur innovation.

Peace. Out.