It depends on the prior art. The basics are: Changing material alone typically does not warrant a new patent unless the results is new and unexpected. Likewise adding or removing structure must result in something new and unexpected plus the structure change itself must be something that could not be anticipated by someone already in the business of making similar baby products. Best to talk with a patent agent or attorney. Also take a look at the prior art at Google patents or the PTO (uspto.gov) and take a look at the previous discussion at

http://www.edisonnation.com/forums/patents/topi...

Best of luck.

I agree with Dond, you should talk with a patent attorney. It’s all very subjective and it’s hard to determine what you’d need without actually seeing what you did. As far as patents go though your materials would be an important point to mention, but you want to keep the patent broad.

If you’d say you make a doodad out of leather in your patent and that’s the only unique aspect you point out, someone else can come along make the exact same doodad out of naugahide and they are around your patent. Patents need to be intentionally detailed but broad otherwise it’s easy for people to design around your words and get away with it. It takes a very good patent attorney to make sure you are protected in every possible way.

Keep in mind that something protectable by a design patent is generally not protectable by a utility patent, and something protectable by a utility patent is generally not protectable by a design patent. The first step here is determining which patent applies to what you want protected.

Utility patents are what most people refer to when they speak of “patents.” In short they protect ideas, or better yet, the products and services which result from ideas and which serve an actual function beyond, say, looking pretty.

Design patents protect the non-functional, “ornamental” design of a functional product. This can refer to a product’s shape, or external appearance. The materials used in manufacture are 100% besides the point – all that matters is their appearance. And, if the materials used in manufacture affect the product’s function (i.e. creates cost advantages), or the shape of a product affects the product’s function (i.e. results in better mechanics or aerodynamics), etcetera – none of that stuff is protectable by a design patent.

Utility patents protect innovation, design patents help protect against knock-offs. Design patent protection is similar to trademark protection and in some circumstances can actually overlap with trademark protection (Google “trade dress” for more info). Design patents exist alongside utility patents, not in place of them. One reason you hear a lot of talk about design patents among inventors is because they are noticeably cheaper than utility patents, and hence the notion that they offer more than very narrow protection on just about any invention becomes a convenient myth…

FILE BOTH!!!! That is if you have the opportunity and money to do so. Sometimes a design patent backing up or running along a utility patent is useless, but sometimes it is not. Sometimes although you have an invention that performs a task, it is engineered, it performs a function that is new and unique; there are still some custom ornamental aspects you may want to also protect ESPECIALLY if your patent does not issue or becomes weak OR to protect you WHILE your utility patent issued.

“Patent # D 5,843,612 and other patents pending” sounds to me like you are willing to take all steps to protect yourself! You are serious at defending your property! Spend the $2500 on the PCT too so you can say “international patents pending” too if you have the cash.

Remember, international rights may not mean much to you but can be VERY important to a large company you license to…or…you may keep the U.S. rights yourself and sell or license the international rights!!!! You never heard ANY inventor talk that advice about international rights but me!!!

A design patent should cost $1500 in attorney/agent fees and issue in less than two years or you can file a “petition to make special”, anyone can with a design patent for an extra fee of $900 (may have gone up a bit). This rushed application is called a “rocket docket” in the trade and issues (or not basically) in 9 months.

1)This gives you some protection for the time being
2) Again, shows you are serious in protecting yourself
3) You can “throw around in your travels” that your idea is patented, you don’t have to mention design. THIS HELPS…and can ward off anyone with even AN INKLING of challenging you…or will help if they talk about your product to who knows who….maybe another manufacturer etc.

I say…for $2000 total or so…why not…design patents are also MUCH simpler…you can file yourself and then just pay small application fees. My advice is for very serious inventors though with an idea they think is really specially and definitely will be commercialized.

I don’t no if this is good advice or not, but I included the unique shape (hot dog bun) into the utility patent drawings to show anticipation of one my final designs. for future design shapes, I would probably have to do the design patents.

All good advice. Remember also, that general, common shapes can not be design patented.

Design patents have their place…but usually only in the market arena. You can in fact have both design and utility patent on the same device or article, but they are for different purposes and cover different statutory subject matter. For example, let’s say you (Rachel) invented a dandy new line of Rachel Hardy food processors. Your products might have dozens of patenable features, mostly covered by UTILITY patents (the motor/gears arrangement, the comminuting rotors, the snappy light system that tells you when grit turns to mush…etc. When marketing plans are made, your helpful product design engineer will add that now-famous Rachel Hardy “look” because that’s the “look” people want in their kitchens. This look (shape of the base, lid, tapered bowl etc.) is covered by design patent(s). However, if the shape of the mixing bowl has a unique utility FUNCTION (like re-circulating the goop), it might not be permitted design patent coverage. So, it’s possible to have both kinds of patents…along with the RH trademark. In most all cases, the design patent is a part of your (or your licensee’s) marketing effort..and has nothing to do with the early, basic invention/product development stage. Sadly, too many inventors start thinking about “designs” far too soon in the commercialization chain. By the way, if Rachel decides on a hotdog bun shape for her snappy RH Food Processor design, she is very likely to win a design patent. Common shapes ARE patentable designs if the shapes are applied out of original context. Just food for thought. PROCESS THAT! Cheers DK;o)