iPhones are typically next to you, not the best place for an early alert smoke detector. A strategically located ceiling would be better.
Did you read the entire article? Detection can be built into other devices like Apple TV, Macs, PCs, Airport routers, etc. It also states that the phone device can help onsite responders locate the device which would probably include the owner. Patent applications are for the technology and how it's built into a device. The challenge is to patent the design before your competitors. Many of Apples patents never make it into final products. This one is of interest only because Apple has been putting so many other sensors into the iPhone and Apple Watch. (M8 motion sensor, barometer, etc. )
Did you read the entire article? Detection can be built into other devices like Apple TV, Macs, PCs, Airport routers, etc.
Did you understand his argument? Hot air rises, so smoke from a fire rises. Unless your Mac or Apple TV or Airport router is mounted on the ceiling, by the time the smoke has reached device level, the owners already dead.
This will probably evolve into a full air quality detector and detect much more than smoke. I could see that being very popular with the health conscious. Just knowing what the air pollution/smog/air quality is at any given location indoors or outdoors would allow people to make an informed choice about where to spend their time. (Ie: this restaurant smells musty and has a poor air quality rating so I'm going to eat elsewhere!)
Now we know what the 's' will be for -- 2 years from now -- in the iPhone 7s! "Smoke detector"
More seriously, I wonder how it would be in rooms full of cigarette smoker (nightclubs, etc.). Will it differentiate that from "the room is on fire" smoke? I imagine this is a requirement that traditional smoke detectors have already had to address.
Where in 2015 are there public places with a room full of smokers? At least in the northeast, there are 0.
For what it is worth, to me this is just a trivial combination of 2 existing items: a iPhone and a a smoke detector. I don't understand that a patent is granted for this.
If I would integrate a cumb and an iPhone, (very handy because my hair is always in a mess and I never carry a cumb with me), could I be granted a patent as well?
repeat after me: ideas aren't patented, implementations are.
you can't patent a flying car as a concept. you can certainly patent the proprietary propulsion system you developed for a flying car.
since a bulky smoke detector isn't a smart phone, they're obviously different implementations. thus the patent.
Now imagine all iPhones in a limited area acting as a mesh network, so if one detects a fire, it alerts everyone in that area. This could be useful for a whole host of emergency situations.
you can't patent a flying car as a concept. you can certainly patent the proprietary propulsion system you developed for a flying car.
since a bulky smoke detector isn't a smart phone, they're obviously different implementations. thus the patent.
Out of curiosity: To what extent must what I want to get patented actually work, be manufacturable etc.?
To my understanding I do not need some working demonstrator. Therefore, the line between "concept" and "the specific implementation" is not as black and white as it might appear. Let's say, I patent an engine for a car based on liquid carrots. As it is a new implementation for liquid carrots, I get the patent. Then, one day, someone comes up with a car on the market and it has a new engine based on liquid carrots. I smile and successfully claim license fees based on my patent. Yes?
Maybe this has been covered in some of the previous threads. If yes, then I apologize and maybe you can give me a link.
Out of curiosity: To what extent must what I want to get patented actually work, be manufacturable etc.?
To my understanding I do not need some working demonstrator. Therefore, the line between "concept" and "the specific implementation" is not as black and white as it might appear. Let's say, I patent an engine for a car based on liquid carrots. As it is a new implementation for liquid carrots, I get the patent. Then, one day, someone comes up with a car on the market and it has a new engine based on liquid carrots. I smile and successfully claim license fees based on my patent. Yes?
Maybe this has been covered in some of the previous threads. If yes, then I apologize and maybe you can give me a link.
I think what you described is still just a concept. I think your patent filing would need to include some detail as to how the mechanism you designed would actually convert the liquid carrots into usable energy and the mechanism is the piece you would be awarded a patent on. You would probably also want to write it more generically and instead of "liquid carrots", you'd just say "vegetables".
I think what you described is still just a concept. I think your patent filing would need to include some detail as to how the mechanism you designed would actually convert the liquid carrots into usable energy and the mechanism is the piece you would be awarded a patent on. You would probably also want to write it more generically and instead of "liquid carrots", you'd just say "vegetables".
Ok. But I suppose my main statement still holds: you don't need a working prototype, and the line between concept and implementation is not that b/w.
If the claims used to say "electronic device" and now say "cellular phone," that was a significant narrowing of the claims. In patent law, "narrowing" means that the patent doesn't exclude as much activity by other people (i.e. the patent isn't as broad in what it "owns"). Normally, a patent applicant wouldn't _want_ to narrow the claims of the patent, unless that narrowing was necessary for the patent to be considered valid by the patent office. The change seems to be a strong indication that the patent office thought that "electronic device" was too broad of a claim. What seems strange to me is that, if there were already "electronic devices" implementing this patent, narrowing it to "cellular phone" (which is a type of electronic device) is still not valid.
you don't need a working prototype, and the line between concept and implementation is not that b/w
True that you don't need a working prototype, at least in the U.S.
Of course, your patent can't be based on fiction: if it violates physics (e.g. a "perpetual motion" machine), it isn't valid and the application would be rejected.
Initially, this appears trivial - an obvious idea that shouldn't be patentable.
Reading the patent though shows that the novelty is not some clever way to miniaturise a smoke detector but the various ways a smoke detector could be used within a smart phone.
For example, unlike traditional smoke alarms, which alert occupants and possibly fire services, a smart phone can notify neighbours or key holders. In conjunction with iCloud, for example, it could detect which of my contacts are in the immediate vicinity and generate a loud audible alert on their device.
If a friend sleeps in my house and my Apple Time Capsule detects a fire in the basement, it could trigger my friend's iPhone to alert them with a loud tone.
Calling the emergency services whenever smoke is detected would cause too many false alarms to be useful but calling them if my Apple Watch detects I haven't moved 30seconds after the alarm sounded would be invaluable if I've been overcome by smoke inhalation.
The patent appears to allow all of these and many more scenarios. It covers ways a set of smart devices could respond using all of their inputs to detect what is happening, who is in danger and who needs alerting.
True that you don't need a working prototype, at least in the U.S.
Of course, your patent can't be based on fiction: if it violates physics (e.g. a "perpetual motion" machine), it isn't valid and the application would be rejected.
Comments
Did you read the entire article? Detection can be built into other devices like Apple TV, Macs, PCs, Airport routers, etc. It also states that the phone device can help onsite responders locate the device which would probably include the owner. Patent applications are for the technology and how it's built into a device. The challenge is to patent the design before your competitors. Many of Apples patents never make it into final products. This one is of interest only because Apple has been putting so many other sensors into the iPhone and Apple Watch. (M8 motion sensor, barometer, etc. )
Did you read the entire article? Detection can be built into other devices like Apple TV, Macs, PCs, Airport routers, etc.
Did you understand his argument? Hot air rises, so smoke from a fire rises. Unless your Mac or Apple TV or Airport router is mounted on the ceiling, by the time the smoke has reached device level, the owners already dead.
Where in 2015 are there public places with a room full of smokers? At least in the northeast, there are 0.
Cigar stores.
More seriously, I wonder how it would be in rooms full of cigarette smoker (nightclubs, etc.).
Smoke detectors do not respond to lit tobacco or hooka, otherwise you couldn't have had them anywhere.
Now we know what the 's' will be for -- 2 years from now -- in the iPhone 7s! "Smoke detector"
More seriously, I wonder how it would be in rooms full of cigarette smoker (nightclubs, etc.). Will it differentiate that from "the room is on fire" smoke? I imagine this is a requirement that traditional smoke detectors have already had to address.
Where in 2015 are there public places with a room full of smokers? At least in the northeast, there are 0.
What about Casinos?
This seems like a good idea.
With all of the sensors and abilities our phones already have I have only one more request:
A bullshit detector.
It would be nice to be able to talk to someone (like a used car sales person) and be able to whip out your phone and its flashing *BULLSHIT*
Naysaying requires saying nay, except when it's a google patent, then it's automatically awesome without qualification.
What about all of Asia?
What about Casinos?
What about all of Asia?
Fair enough. I don't live there but I understand your sentiment.
But I think @thrang was talking about the United States Northeast specifically.
I could be wrong about thrangs location though.
repeat after me: ideas aren't patented, implementations are.
you can't patent a flying car as a concept. you can certainly patent the proprietary propulsion system you developed for a flying car.
since a bulky smoke detector isn't a smart phone, they're obviously different implementations. thus the patent.
Now imagine all iPhones in a limited area acting as a mesh network, so if one detects a fire, it alerts everyone in that area. This could be useful for a whole host of emergency situations.
This could be bad news for hippies.
Or Cubans.
you can't patent a flying car as a concept. you can certainly patent the proprietary propulsion system you developed for a flying car.
since a bulky smoke detector isn't a smart phone, they're obviously different implementations. thus the patent.
Out of curiosity: To what extent must what I want to get patented actually work, be manufacturable etc.?
To my understanding I do not need some working demonstrator. Therefore, the line between "concept" and "the specific implementation" is not as black and white as it might appear. Let's say, I patent an engine for a car based on liquid carrots. As it is a new implementation for liquid carrots, I get the patent. Then, one day, someone comes up with a car on the market and it has a new engine based on liquid carrots. I smile and successfully claim license fees based on my patent. Yes?
Maybe this has been covered in some of the previous threads. If yes, then I apologize and maybe you can give me a link.
Ok. But I suppose my main statement still holds: you don't need a working prototype, and the line between concept and implementation is not that b/w.
What seems strange to me is that, if there were already "electronic devices" implementing this patent, narrowing it to "cellular phone" (which is a type of electronic device) is still not valid.
True that you don't need a working prototype, at least in the U.S.
Of course, your patent can't be based on fiction: if it violates physics (e.g. a "perpetual motion" machine), it isn't valid and the application would be rejected.
Here's Wikipedia on what can/cannot be patented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability
Reading the patent though shows that the novelty is not some clever way to miniaturise a smoke detector but the various ways a smoke detector could be used within a smart phone.
For example, unlike traditional smoke alarms, which alert occupants and possibly fire services, a smart phone can notify neighbours or key holders. In conjunction with iCloud, for example, it could detect which of my contacts are in the immediate vicinity and generate a loud audible alert on their device.
If a friend sleeps in my house and my Apple Time Capsule detects a fire in the basement, it could trigger my friend's iPhone to alert them with a loud tone.
Calling the emergency services whenever smoke is detected would cause too many false alarms to be useful but calling them if my Apple Watch detects I haven't moved 30seconds after the alarm sounded would be invaluable if I've been overcome by smoke inhalation.
The patent appears to allow all of these and many more scenarios. It covers ways a set of smart devices could respond using all of their inputs to detect what is happening, who is in danger and who needs alerting.
Thank you for the clarification and the link.