Hi Sarah
The provisional patent application (PPA) will establish the official filing date when you present a full and clear disclosure of your invention. It’s not reviewed or examined by the USPTO, but the clarity and completeness of your disclosure to the USPTO is critically important. Also, the PPA should not limit your invention in unnecessary ways (for example, if your description indicates that a part of your invention is rectangular when in fact it could have any reasonable shape…or you say it has wheels when in fact it could have skids). This can be tricky. Within a year of the established filing date (if you wish to actually obtain a patent) you must file the non-provisional application, or NPA, and clearly claim your rights to the initial filing date (of the PPA). If you add better information, eg, showing features that make the invention work more effectively, your PPA filing date won’t cover that improvement. So it’s very important to file a quality PPA.
Every player steps up to the plate with her/his own set of skills and abilities. Perhaps you can do the PPA on your own. In any case, it’s a good investment of time and a small amount of funds to ask a seasoned patent agent or attorney to look over your PPA before filing…and offer any tweaks it needs to make it whole…and a solid basis for your subsequent claims to your special intellecutal property. Many agents will do this for small compensation and no strings…even help you with the sticky details of ensuring your papers are filed in good order. In short, yes it’s true:“The quality of your PPA will affect your ‘real’ patent.” I’m happy to see you’re going to start with a patent search. Too many inventors skip that all important step and lose the great value it holds for finding out what’s already known in the field…who’s your competition…possible licensee prospects etc. etc. Give yourself a backpat. dk

I suggest using a patent attorney or agent to help you. Also, be sure to include patent drawings. Your provisional application sets the groundwork for your utility patent. It pays to do it right the first time. I don’t do a utility patent unless I have developed a licensing deal. Often the licensee will pay the utility patent costs. Keep in mind you can also do a design patent, which is much less expensive.

Design patents are pretty much ‘worthless’ unless you have the protection of a utility patent to go along with it (if it applies). If you get both, that puts you in a great position. Also, constantly improve your utility patent… Additional patents covering product improvement are always desirable if you want to stay ahead of the competition…

Thanks guys! This information was really helpful! Think I probably will go with some sort of professional help. Wouldn’t want to lose out later because I had an error this early in the process.

Thanks again!

It’s important to understand that “design patents” do have their place in the IP world. Product design can be key to market success, where the “look” (aesthetic appearance) of a product will be the defining feature setting it apart from the competition.
A design patent shouldn’t be sought until the product/device has passed through engineering/production design phases. This is because we want the final shelf model to enjoy the Design patent coverage.

There really is no relationship between the Design and Utility patent since they are procured for such different purposes. The U.Pat. addresses the invention function (what it does/how it works)and can abide a great variety of appearances. Competitors might attempt to duplicate the patented invention function while attempting to cloak their “rip-off” with a different appearance. Claim analysis will reveal the infringement.

The D.Pat. embraces essentially a singular shape and structural appearance. Competitors are free to modify the patented shape/appearance without fear of Court action. But, if the patented design is “The Hot Look” in its product category (thanks to aggressive marketing), the D.Pat. can bring a 14-year flow of gold.

By the way, I generally discourage seeking (co-prosecuting) a U.Pat AND its corresponding D.Pat. since the inventor rarely has a clue as to the look of the final commercial model.
Cheers…