DIY PneuMags & PTP

[RRfireblade]

Pretty much what Pneumagger said.

Your patent is about assisting the the movement of the Trigger. But relative to What?

Most markers have a semi fixed trigger input force.

Many markers "amplify" this force to fire marker.

Colin's patent takes a semi fixed trigger input force and moves the Sear.

He simply uses pnuematic to do this. Just as a means to an end.

The argument that his use of Pnuematics to do this lightens the pull and therefor "assists" trigger movement is ridiculous.

So does using a microswitch and electronics. You going to go after Smart Parts too?

If I adjust the spring return of my EGO trigger to lighten the pull am I now in violation of your patent?

How about if I switch out the single trigger frame of my Mag to a Duel trigger Intelli there by incresing my leverage and lighting my pull, another violation?

Not to mention that as Pnuemagger pointed out that the RT valve patent may already cover
Pnuematicaly assited triggers.

I think in your attemt to be as broad as possible in your patent app. you may have made it so broad as to be pointless.

The patent decribes mechanisms to do so.

Here's the exact paragraph that covers Pneumags...

In addition to aiding in the actuation of the trigger itself, an alternate embodiment of the invention contemplates replacing the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism with a pneumatic operating system. In this embodiment of the invention, rearward movement of the trigger opens a pneumatic air valve. As the pneumatic air valve is opened, air pressure is supplied to an actuating ram coupled to the cocking ram of the paintball gun. When the actuating ram is pressurized, the air pressure of the actuating ram operates the cocking/firing mechanism to cause a paintball to be fired. In this manner, the air pressure of the actuating ram causes the mechanical movement of the cocking/firing mechanism, rather than a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism. The use of air pressure rather than the mechanical linkage allows for a faster and less physically demanding movement by the user on the trigger. After the firing sequence has been initiated, the residual pressure within the pneumatic valve aids in returning the trigger to its pre-firing position.

[rabidchihauhau]

The patent decribes mechanisms to do so.

Here's the exact paragraph that covers Pneumags...

YAH. What he said!

Look, I'm going to come across as a monumental jerk right now, but - if you've never worked on a patent and haven't had to deal with the idiocy from the PTO, it is virtually pointless to discuss the issue with you.

Language in patent apps is not the same as conversational/forum english. My posts are waaaay too long to begin with and much of what I put in here is seriously watered down for brevity's sake - with meaning lost and with an ever-increasing chance that people will pick on a word or phrase and start barking up that tree.

'trigger assist' is just the name of the damn patent; the teachings, claims, diagrams and summary are what describes the invention. the invention described in PTP's patents is, with the exception of different engineering choices, the same type of invention as is described in the DW patent. (I even had hydraulics in an original draft of the thing...); it does not matter what word you want to use to describe it. both concepts use pneumatic/mechanical systems to (here's a new word) 'enhance' the action of a trigger on a paintball gun, attempting to achieve the end result of very short trigger pull, very light trigger pull, very fast return to battery and the ability to use the same mechanisms to create mechanical bounce/rapid trigger actuation.

You could automate the on/off assembly in a mag valve and do the same thing...

the real question for the PTO in granting the patent is whether it is a new idea and whether the device as described can be made functional by someone familiar with the field of invention. A further question would be - is one or the other devices sufficiently DIFFERENT from the other that a patent will grant DESPITE the fact that they achieve the same things.

The examiner did not use the claims/descriptions in the PTP pneumatic app to decide whether DW's would grant - they only used the first 'half' which was electro/magnetic/mechanical in nature.

They can't use pending apps to make these kinds of decisions because if they did, no patent would ever grant - they'd be waiting forever to see the new pendings...

"My claims were too broad". Well sorry, chum, but that's the job. You want to write your claims to be substantiated by the design, but you want them to cover as MUCH territory as you can possibly get away with - and these days, the vaguer they are, the better.

Yes, absolutely, that gives the patent holder the right to say to anyone else 'you're infringing' when they very well might not be, but, guess what - we'll take you to court and attempt to prove our case: oh, so sorry you can't afford legal battles, well, then, you better settle. ...and we NEVER get to find out if there was actual infringement or not.

Its like drawing a property line with a BIG sharpie instead of a fine pointed pencil. If you;ve got the dollars and the map in your hand, you can point to any portion of that 1/4 inch wide line and say 'this is my property', sorry the river is all on my side and no, you can't water your sheep. Time to call the sherriff. Ooops, better get John Wayne, the sherriff is owned by the evil cattle baron.....with all the money.....and all the paperwork.

Look, this is not 'me' - the fair, open-minded, open-hearted guy who's fond of inventing cool things for paintballers and then giving them away so some other company can claim originality and make millions, this is the evil, partisan, play the game by the rules on the table 'me'.

That 'me' says, when working under contract for someone else, that my job is to get them as big a bang for their buck as possible. If the rules say, write claims as broad as you can and let the PTO chop them back, then that's what I do. If being broad means laying claim to the invention of the wheel, wonder bread and the safety pin, its not my job to get all moralistic about it. Its my job to make a reasonable case for throwing them in there. If the PTO comes back and says, you can have the wheel and wonder bread, but the safety pin is out - WOO HOO, we win.

[Pneumagger]

Alright, I guess I can see how everyone sorta gets screwed here. Man, I hate regulations. I work on government jobs all the time now, and the red tape everywhere is rediculous. I cant even rearrange mu office w/out asking.


So, is there anyway that when the dust settles (soon hopefully), that somebody can come out with 1-2 hundred frames using these great designs? Just for the niche market, not a continueing product. I mean, they'd only be in the $250 range hopefully.

Not trying to be offensive, but is there a risk in either DW or PTP using their designs and manufacturing their frames while waiting for stuff to be Granted? Why can't this happen?

[RRfireblade]

Alright, I guess I can see how everyone sorta gets screwed here. Man, I hate regulations. I work on government jobs all the time now, and the red tape everywhere is rediculous. I cant even rearrange mu office w/out asking.


So, is there anyway that when the dust settles (soon hopefully), that somebody can come out with 1-2 hundred frames using these great designs? Just for the niche market, not a continueing product. I mean, they'd only be in the $250 range hopefully.

Not trying to be offensive, but is there a risk in either DW or PTP using their designs and manufacturing their frames while waiting for stuff to be Granted? Why can't this happen?

I know no one believes it but it is true that PTP had 'Sllooooowwwlllyyy' been working in thiers. Most of the parts have been machined and most of the pieces have been manufactured and/or sourced. There are just a coulple of items yet to go , some final assembly and testing of the final product and basically that't it.

No I don't have an ETA.

No I don't have a price.

Yes I have lost most of the good parts of my mind over this.

[Shingo]

Who needs pliers? I can fire my mag by jumping up and down.

Careful... someone may have a patent on that.

~Shingo~

[Pneumagger]

Yes I have lost most of the good parts of my mind over this.

LOL

This is the kind of news that brightens my day. Being a mech-e, I love acuiring technical things. I guess that why I love the automag. To me, an automag is a mechanical masterpiece: no frilly electronics, great design, good tolerences... what more could ask for :) This all mech frame will make it so much better...someday

[Shingo]

I know no one believes it but it is true that PTP had 'Sllooooowwwlllyyy' been working in thiers. Most of the parts have been machined and most of the pieces have been manufactured and/or sourced. There are just a coulple of items yet to go , some final assembly and testing of the final product and basically that't it.

THERE IS HOPE!!!

I better start saving up



~Shingo~

[rabidchihauhau]

there are as many strategies for how to work with IP in the marketplace as there are individuals with patents.

there is no 'law' that prevents you from filing an app and then starting to make and market the product - hoping the IP gets granted.

some folks will mfg and then have the product sit until the grant. some don't do jack until the patent is granted.

some put in a patent that is 'crafted' to not get granted the first time around (no patent is granted without at least one office action) so that they can see what their competitors are going to do; as long as they file a divisional prior to the granting, they get to 'steal' their competitors stuff.

some get a patent granted and sit on it (like the interruptable windshield washer motor guy), sending out vague C&Ds designed to get the receivers to poo poo it, and then hit people with a major lawsuit seeking treble damages...

the danger in not waiting is two-fold: you might not get the grant and then have to remove 'patent pending' from everything; or, similar, your final granted claims may not be for what you are actually making. the other is that what is finally granted requires reengineering and you've just wasted all that money.

the danger in not mfg while waiting is - giving up the market to a similar product, watching the market for your design disappear, etc., having someone much bigger than you copy it and poo poo your C&D

the best overall IP strategy is to hold it for one of two non-mutually exclusive purposes: 1 is licensing it (let others worry about mfg, mktg, etc) and the other is preventing your competitors from making/marketing something. You are granted the next best thing to a monopoly over the technology and preventing someone from using it until they "see reason" is a very powerful business tool. You can also go the route of patenting 'improvements' to others designs, etc., etc.

Most folks in the paintball industry seem to make before they get a grant.

***

Hey, I love mags too, but the industry is not focused on cool tech, its focused on flashy stuff they can get the kids to buy - whether it works or not. there are, no doubt, many cool designs out there for things that will never see the light of day, if only because it is not marketable. great idea - yes. makes oodles of money and screws with competitors - not. oh well, shove it to the bottom of the closet. now let's get back to the gold plated triggers shaped like religious icons cause they're selling. who's next - buddha?

[robnix]

Careful... someone may have a patent on that.

~Shingo~

[Jimbud]

The problem is my post was in reference to claims 7-8 and 9 of the issued Patent only. As rabidchihauhau seemed to imply that they alone were enought to invalidate the DW Patent.

The paragraph you are quoting here is I assume from a patent application that may or may not ever be granted. You speak of the two as if they are one and the same. They are not.

If that Patent ever gets granted then that will be another issue.

What about the other points and questions in my post? Any comment on those as the relate to the "issued" Patent?
Not really trying to be argumentive here, just curious.

The patent decribes mechanisms to do so.

Here's the exact paragraph that covers Pneumags...

[NoForts4Me]

Look, I'm going to come across as a monumental jerk right now, but -

Actually, rabidchihauhau, if you wouldn't call posters chums, you wouldn't. Your posts can be informative, notwithstanding their haughty nature.

Despite my inferior intellect, it appears to me that at this point and time, both PTP and Nicad have claims to part or all of a similar product. This may change in the future, depending on the Patent Office or the court system (if it ever went that far), but as of now, there doesn't appear to be exclusive rights to it by either party. Again, I'm just a simple paintball player posting on the interwebs, but that is how it appears by what has been posted. So my previous point that for someone to license this technology it would be difficult due to multiple claims of ownership is valid.

Also, to my layman's mind, it appears that these patents are on improvements of pre-existing technology, as rudimentary forms of assisted triggers have been around for a while, even though they weren't patented.

I hope the posts here haven't skewed people one way or the other as to the respectablity of some of the posters, namely RRfireblade, Nicad, and Rogue. In my dealings with them, which has been limited to web board postings, pm's, and admiring their work, they all appear to be great guys. Despite their differences, all of them are worthy of respect and peoples' continued business.

[RRfireblade]

The problem is my post was in reference to claims 7-8 and 9 of the issued Patent only. As rabidchihauhau seemed to imply that they alone were enought to invalidate the DW Patent.

The paragraph you are quoting here is I assume from a patent application that may or may not ever be granted. You speak of the two as if they are one and the same. They are not.

If that Patent ever gets granted then that will be another issue.

What about the other points and questions in my post? Any comment on those as the relate to the "issued" Patent?
Not really trying to be argumentive here, just curious.

No. Right off the first page of grant #6,802,305 , in the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION " and then later again in the "Detailed Description Of The Invention" is paragraphed this....

In the second type of system, as illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8, a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism for the paintball gun is eliminated and a pressurized actuating ram is used. In this system, the trigger closes an air valve, which begins the firing sequence. Once again, since the user does not need to actuate the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism, the rate at which the trigger can be pulled and released is increased, thus increasing the number of paintballs that can be fired during a given time period. In each of the two embodiments illustrated, assistance is given to the user during the trigger cycle such that the speed of the trigger cycle can be increased, effectively increasing the number of paintballs fired by a semi-automatic paintball gun.

Nicads contention apparently , is that since the actual term "Pneumatic" wasn't singled out in the upper portion of the 'Claims' and only assumed to be as one of many possible methods of actuation , then some how all the later drawings, descriptions and teachings and references to "Pneumatic" uses are invalid.

Personally I disagree.

[rabidchihauhau]

I guess I'm just gun shy and have taken to apologizing in advance just to cover the bases...

INDEPENDANT CLAIMS STAND ALONE.

Claim 7 of the ISSUED patent references a 'FORCE ELEMENT'.

The claim that was GRANTED covers a 'force element' for assisting in the pull of the trigger and another for the return of the trigger.

The drawings illustrate how that can be accomplished, as do the specification.

Show me a method of doing the above that does not use a 'force element' ("force element....we don't need no stinkin force element")

Herein lies the 'contention'; some, as RR has pointed out, contend that because the initial claim in the granted patent references one particular type of 'force element' (electro-magnets) that this somehow invalidates the later claim 7 which only references the generic 'force element'.

However, it does not. The examiner (our friend Ricci) did a good one for PTP this particular time around by leaving those claims in - DESPITE the subject matter contained in the first 6 claims.

Had the claims language referenced claims 1 through 6 in some manner, than the 'force element' of claim 7 would be tied into those claims and would be defined as an 'electromagnetic force element' for purposes of the claims. They DO NOT reference earlier claims and therefore DO NOT 'borrow' the definition of force element from those earlier claims. Claim 7 remains standing on its own.

Therefore, PTP has acquired the patent rights to whatever is covered by claim 7. In this case the generic and oh-so-vaguely defined 'force element'.

Now, its true that others who are concerned will attack the validity of this claim as we have seen; they will point to the earlier subject matter (electromagnets); they will state that the 'preferred embodiment' specification is for the device described in the first 6 claims; they will bring the smoke in and refer to the 'unissued' divisional application (in a negative manner designed to make it sound like PTP did something 'wrong'); they will state that 'force element' is too vague - BUT

first - they can't get away from the drawings which show the 'force element' - pneumatic version. second, they can't get away from the description language. third, they can't deny that claim 7 is an independant claim. fourth, they can't get past the fact that the patent examiner ACCEPTED 'force element' as a definition in the claims. And finally, it can not be denied that 'force element' covers pneumatic technologies.

Here's where the rub occurs: a person owning such a patent will, justifiably, claim that 'force element' references ANYTHING THEY SAY IT REFERENCES. Rubberbands, springs, pneumatic rams, solenoid valves, air motors, etc., etc., etc. The entity owning the patent carries a fair amount of weight because they have the grant in their hands.

A party not having the patent will claim that their particular device either does not utilize a 'force element' -or- (very important distinction here) does not utilize something that can be defined as a 'force element' in the MANNER DESCRIBED IN THE PATENT.

We've already seen one argument along those lines: the DW patent operates on the 'sear', not the trigger.

Maybe, maybe not. In a mag, the sear and the trigger are essentially one component and I would argue that applying the force element to the trigger IS applying the force element to the sear. That's an 'argument' - not a settled fact.

Unfortunately, giving greater weight to the PTP side, is the fact that the PTP GRANT (and application) cover the same device for other types of paintball guns where it is clearly demonstrated and taught that a 'trigger assisting device' must necessarily involve, at a minimum, improvements to the trigger AND the sear in all cases. If the 'trigger' is not linked to the 'sear' in some manner that causes operation of one to affect the action of the other, you can play all day with a really fast trigger and not fire a single ball.

Finally; arguments over what is in a claim and what is defined by language used in a claim are possible, but the holding of a granted patent with earlier filing date lends weight to the holder's argument over and above a 'he said, she said' fest.

There IS plenty of room for discussion here and the current situation DOES leave the possibility for people to take a contrary position on the subject, although in my considered opinion, and given the current rulings and findings in court and elsewhere involving equally 'mushy' claim language, I strongly believe that the 'force element' would stand as a valid claim covering pneumatic technologies.

[RRfireblade]

Despite my inferior intellect, it appears to me that at this point and time, both PTP and Nicad have claims to part or all of a similar product. This may change in the future, depending on the Patent Office or the court system (if it ever went that far), but as of now, there doesn't appear to be exclusive rights to it by either party.

Also, to my layman's mind, it appears that these patents are on improvements of pre-existing technology, as rudimentary forms of assisted triggers have been around for a while, even though they weren't patented.

1) True , the diffference between the 2 'should' fall back the earlier filing in which PTP retains by a few years.

2) True again , as 'improvements' on not only un-patented invention but previously Patented inventions are not only accepted by USPTO but a fairly common occourance. This is one of the primary purposes (as I understand it ) of the "Back Ground" portions of an invention applicatoin so you can show why yours differs or improves on previous designs.

[Jimbud]

Well again I must repeat I am no legal expert.

But I would argue that seems that when the Patent was split some language, descriptions and drawings were allowed to remain that should not have.

Claims 7,8.9 describe "assisting trigger movement".
And even the description of how they work in the "Claims" portion of the Patent do not match the Descriptions supported by Figures 7 and 8.

There seems to be no "Claim" that covers:
"the second type of system, as illustrated in FIGS. 7 and 8, a mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism for the paintball gun is eliminated and a pressurized actuating ram is used. In this system, the trigger closes an air valve, which begins the firing sequence. Once again, since the user does not need to actuate the mechanical linkage between the trigger and the cocking/firing mechanism, the rate at which the trigger can be pulled and released is increased, thus increasing the number of paintballs that can be fired during a given time period. In each of the two embodiments illustrated, assistance is given to the user during the trigger cycle such that the speed of the trigger cycle can be increased, effectively increasing the number of paintballs fired by a semi-automatic paintball gun.

This is all covered however in the Claims of the split second App.

I think the only thing we can all agree on is that there is room for argument here and this will have to settled in Court.