United States Design Patents
 

* The United States Patent Office has a category of patent protection for intellectual property separate from 'UTILITY' patents called 'Design' patents.
* Why they've never been mentioned by a certain someone from Australia, whom lately, has taken upon himself to judge all others in all things patents, may be interpreted in any way the reader chooses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In the early 1990s, when I took an interest in patent protection for my own inventions I spent a considerable amount of time in Dallas, Texas, between the Federal Building, Small Business Administration, Senior Corps of Retired Executives, Texas Christian University's workshop on grant writing in Fort Worth, and the 6th-floor of the Dallas Public Library, which is an official repository for federal documents, including all US Patents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The 14-year Design patent deals with 'ornamental' intellectual property. Graphical representations of 'new', 'original', 'ornamental design', which themselves are conceptual representations of ideation.
* There are no claims, other that what is submitted, is new and original.
* Applicants are required to do a search of other design patents to do due diligence in supporting the novelty of their design.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are design patents for aerodynamic structures. There are no claims made for anything pertaining to aerodynamics, just ornamentation.
An example:
U.S. Design Patent 325,366 by Larry Mansberger, PO Box 21318, Carson City, Nevada 89721 Phone: 702 882- 8067 Filed July 2, 1990, date of patent April 14, 1992

The patent is two-pages. Two illustrations. CLAIM one sentence. Description of two figures
An AEROCAP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A take-away.
1992 was before cell-phones. Anyone with a phone was listed in the regional phonebook.
I got a phonebook for Carson City, got Larry's phone number ( I've provided), and called him.
In the course of our phone conversation he told me that he'd never built a cap. Never one as depicted. Never driven. Never tested. Never manufactured. Never sold. Never existed officially, except as ink on two pages of a federal document.
Context to a first-order reality experience for Larry Mansberger, in receiving a United States Patent for an 'idea.'
Just sayin'

My best friend from high school is a supervisor at the US patient office and has her patent law degree from George Washington but now gets to work from home so is back in town. She told me about how someone received a patent for "swinging side to side" on a common swing instead of swinging the standard way. They got it. Thank God it expired a few years back so I won't get sued when I show my granddaughter how to do it.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6368227B1/en

So, what's the trick? Cross your arms above your head and pull the chain/ropes together?

The alternative to the patent process is to just move faster than your competition. They wind up lagging instead of leading.

Flogging a dead horse much?

"In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of a functional item."

Note: not an idea, an ornamental design. In the US, you cannot patent an idea - well, according to the US patent office, anyway. And hey, what would they know? They're only the US patent office!

This is why Aerohead continues ad infinitum to post stuff here that is wrong, misleading or confused. He never, ever takes a correction. In fact, this business about patents is a perfect example. Aerohead wrote that you can patent ideas in the US.

Simply wrong.

You'd think he agree he made a mistake, wouldn't you. But no, not a bit of it.

https://i.postimg.cc/pdpbk6Wk/no-patent-on-idea.png

idea
 

Perhaps you're the only person I'll ever experience in my lifetime, capable of divorcing human thought from the human creative process.
'Ideation' was actually a formal concept presented within the curriculum in mechanical engineering.
After delivering a concrete example, counterfactual to your thesis, it means nothing to you.
Where is the mistake?
What would I be agreeing with?
What is wrong with fact.
How is fact misleading?
How do you arrive at confused?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then we arrive your counter -attack:
It's now grown from 'some' to 'most' all the way to 'ad infinitum'
You could try to say things which sound more stupid, however I can't imagine how you'd succeed.
The rest of us here at the forum are stuck communicating through the use of written word.
I'm going to go for help. I can't deal with you any longer.

Yet more personal abuse.

And of course, yet another thread where Aerohead won't admit to making a clear mistake.

Yes, I do think the amount of misinformation you are posting is increasing. I used to look to see if there were mistakes in what you posted; now I look for anything that you write that is correct. Of your posts I read (I don't read all of them), not much is correct, I am afraid.