CAD Generated Utility Patent Drawings

M. B.,

I just use SWX to generate the graphics.  I did the numbering and lines in PowerPoint as I found it much easier to accomplish using cut/paste and dragging to move.  The result is all that matters, nit the particular choice(s) of software used.  I have seen a lot of current patents with the lines and numbering done by hand, which is still quite acceptable to the USPTO.

Of note, we did add spline leadered balloons, I think in SW2014 or so.  That may save you some time.

M. B. wrote:

 

Thanks Dennis for sharing your patent drawings and the helpful links. It’s good to see that the USPTO has relaxed its drawing requirements. With my previous patents it was a lot of extra work to make CAD drawings look like patent drawings made by an artist by hand in the 1890’s with a feather quill and ink. :-(

I'm really glad to see this requirement has changed - my patents were from the late '90's, and I really thought it was weird that they "needed" to look like hand drawings. Don't get me started on running the claims through the "legalese generator" - Although I do still like to throw out the occasional "theretohencefore" to see if anyone is paying attention.

M. B. wrote:

 

Dennis,

 

On patent 9,061,404 Figure 2, how did you define that view in SW with the external handle dashed and internal components solid?

M. B.

Ahh, that is one of the beauties of using SWX!!  I actually did this view of an assembly with two different configurations.  The configuration with the solid lines showed the elements of the mechanism only, with everything else suppressed.  The dashed lines showed the whole tool, but that was using the Alternate Position View, which is usually for the purpose of showing another position of a mechanism.  Search the Help for Alternate Position View.

I have been advocating for the ability to do APV for parts and have had to resort to trickery to accomplish it.  APV works for assemblies only (currently).  The trick I employed for parts is to make an assembly with the part in question, but having two configurations, one for each "position" or condition of the part.  It would be simpler to just do for parts what we can do for assemblies.  Vote for SPR 537684.