Ben Tex wrote:I need some advice. I'm a client of ISC and through this process have applied for a patent. When my patent application was shown to me, I was surprised at how it was very specific in describing the way the item would be constructed, something I never had indicated or asked for. When I asked the atty about it, he replied that it was just one way it could be done. My understanding was that the patent would cover the "structure and function" of the invention. Since then, I have invested thousands more in the development of a prototype which, while faithful to the original design, is constructed differently. I contacted the attorney again and was told that since the key construction elements were included in the first claim of the patent application, a change such as mine would require a new application. In other words, I've applied for a patent on one way to make the item (which I never specified) and not the item itself. What are my options?
Why is an attorney specifying the manufacturing technology? This is not a process patent is it? This is quite odd, unless he has engineering support available. I'd say he is out of his league.
Unless you are a manufacturing professional, your production method probably will not be as good as what a skilled practitioner can put together. You're talking about least cost economics, human ergonomics, defect minimization, equipment and tooling reliability, material control, and a host of other issues. Invariably even the best manufacturing plan changes once it goes into practice and people use it. Nobody can think of every single nuance that goes into production. So unless you actually have a production process that you currently use, and it has been completely debugged, you are probably obsolete.
My web-page will show you some of the things I've done with process debugging. We manufactured around 5000 units per day: