Has anyone used SolidWorks or any other CAD software to prepare utility patent drawings?
If yes, would you provide the patent number so I can look at what was accepted by the USPTO?
I’m looking for examples of issued patents where patent illustrators were not used (CAD only) to prepare the drawings. I am particularly interested in patents that do not have linear or stippled shading or, if shading was used, how it was done with modern CAD software techniques.
I have generated all the patent drawings for all of my patents since 2001. They don't have the stippling or cylinder shading you refer to. Those things are okay to have and maybe even preferred, but not required if there are views that make the shape easy to understand. You can go here to see mine: Patent Database Search Results: IN/"dohogne; dennis" in US Patent Collection
Here are some excellent resources that speak directly to your question. The first is from the USPTO and the others from IPWatchDog.com. I recommend you subscribe to their daily blog as they send out a lot of terrific articles that are easy to digest.
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 noticed that you used curved lead lines instead of straight lines for numbering. This was one of the few nice drafting enhancements SW added in recent years. Are your numbers BOM balloons or simple text?
I’m struggling to make the BOM balloon numbers conform to the patent numbering sequence. Just about ready to switch to text so that I can more easily control the numbers and sequence.
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.
Todd Blacksher wrote:
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.
Todd, you had best be careful or Rick's legal team will hit with you a lawsuit and a union grievance.
Dennis Dohogne wrote:
Todd Blacksher wrote:
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.
Todd, you had best be careful or Rick's legal team will hit with you a lawsuit and a union grievance.
I fully plan to have them on retainer for the foreseeable future . . .
Todd Blacksher wrote:
...I fully plan to have them on retainer for the foreseeable future . . .
Our firm, Dewdrop, Cheatem & Hold'mUp, ltd, inc.stands at the ready.
Rick Becker wrote:
Todd Blacksher wrote:
...I fully plan to have them on retainer for the foreseeable future . . .
Our firm, Dewdrop, Cheatem & Hold'mUp, ltd, inc. stands lurks at the ready.
I've met these guys. Guido, the killer pimp, even has them on retainer!
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? I know how to change the line font of an individual component but can't figure out how you made the hidden internal components visible with a solid line font.
The only way I can think of is to have 2 views, 1 with dashed fonts and 1 with solid fonts, then drag the dashed view and position it over the top of the solid font view.
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?
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.
Oh, alternate position views – I’ve used them before but it didn’t occur to me to use them in this way. I might have several patent figures where alternative position views would work. I can see that the number of assembly configurations needed is going to increase substantially.
I have done the drawings for our Patent and save the images as tif files and then the Patent Attorney added the balloons..
M. B.,
I have generated all the patent drawings for all of my patents since 2001. They don't have the stippling or cylinder shading you refer to. Those things are okay to have and maybe even preferred, but not required if there are views that make the shape easy to understand. You can go here to see mine: Patent Database Search Results: IN/"dohogne; dennis" in US Patent Collection
Here are some excellent resources that speak directly to your question. The first is from the USPTO and the others from IPWatchDog.com. I recommend you subscribe to their daily blog as they send out a lot of terrific articles that are easy to digest.
608-Disclosure
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/30/patent-drawings-an-economical-way-to-expand-disclosure/id=22028/
Patent Drawings and Invention Illustrations, What do you Need? - IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/08/02/patent-drawings-101-the-way-to-better-patent-applications/id=50644/