Patenting FEA simulation methods/techniques ?

[missil3]

Hi,

I have been asked by my manager to look into patenting the methods/techniques we use for a dynamic simulation of the deployment of our product. I am wondering if this is patentable at all. Any input regarding this is highly appreciated.

The closest patent to our situation is this:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=aLasAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

The method we are using has never been applied to the type of products we make (apologies for not mentioning the exact product type for confidentiality), so I am thinking there is a possibility that we can patent the method/modeling techniques for this particular application. We use a commercial solver (similar to the patent above) so that is another thing to consider.

 

[corus]

I don't think mathematics is patentable, and FEA is just simply a branch of that subject for which you have found an application. Better would be to publish your method and gain recognition for that particular application.

 

[rb1957]

my 2c ... "The method we are using has never been applied to the type of products" ...
if this is applying an existing methodology to a new (previously untried) product then i'd say no ... you haven't done anything novel, it's like saying FE was developed for planes, then trying to patent using it on cars.

if this is using an existing mtheodology in a new and creative (novel) way then maybe yes.

i think you're in the first camp, i wouldn't publish but make as much hay before your competitors catch on (right now you have a competitive advantage).

btw, why do you want to patent it ? whay do you want to tell the world what you're doing ? would you try to enforce your patent overseas ??

 

[IRstuff]

While math, per se, is not patentable, algorithms and software have been patented in the past. Apple successfully used "look and feel" against some of their competitors in the past.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[GregLocock]

You /can/ patent lots of things, but whether that patent is useful is a whole nother question.

The one in the example looks like a dud to me because anyone who looked at the impact of (sea) waves on steel structures such as piers will have been down that path. One piece of prior art, even if the analysis didn't work out, and kablooey. Also, frankly, people don't go round showing their crash models to each other, so how would Siemens ever find out that someone else had been doing the same thing? However, I am not a patent lawyer.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[missil3]

I found a patent by Ford (

http://www.google.com/patents/US20070179764

) for a method that is quite similar to ours. Our simulation has different steps and some improvements and is being used for an aerospace application.


The problem is the cheif engineer's office wants the method patented and I don't have much experience with patents (never filed one) to explain to them this may not be worth it.

I have forwarded the details of similar patents and the details of our methods to the legal guy, hopefully he will make the right decision.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd take a good look at LS Dyna's examples if that is your field of interest - I believe they include example files for airbag inflation and deflation.

Anyway, they want you to patent it, if they are willing to pay for it, why not?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[jhardy1]

I don't think an Internet forum is the right place to get sound advice on whether a process which you can't describe (for confidentiality reasons) is patentable or not.

However - as to whether generic algorithms or processes are patentable - why not? How good are your patent lawyers, and how much money have you got? I'd get in quick before they get around to "fixing" the US patent system. After all, if Apple can claim (and be awarded!) a design patent USD670286 for a rectangle with rounded corners ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/08/apple_rectangle_rounded_corners/

http://www.google.com/patents/USD670286

(Note that if you look at the sketches in the design patent, it clearly says "broken lines in the Figures show portions of the portable display device which form no part of the claimed design". The only thing which is shown otherwise is - a rectangle with rounded corners! No dimensions, and no other specifics or innovations of any sort are claimed.)

http://julianh72.blogspot.com