1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

All cab builders and designers beware...patent pending baffle/port design

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs [BG]' started by Stumbo, Jun 8, 2018.

  1. bucephylus

    bucephylus Supporting Member Commercial User

    Aug 18, 2002
    General Manager TecPadz LLC
    When was the last patent you prosecuted through USPTO? Your first statement is completely 100% inconsistent with my most recent experience.
    PillO, agedhorse and fdeck like this.
  2. DukeLeJeune

    DukeLeJeune rational romantic mystic cynical idealist Commercial User

    Nov 24, 2008
    Princeton, Texas
    Owner & designer, AudioKinesis; Auth. mfg, Big E (Home Audio only)
    Unless things have changed in the past decade, you can file a "provisional patent application" for a modest fee and legally claim "patent pending" for the next year. The provisional patent application establishes your filing date and gives you a year to file a utility patent application or a design patent application, both of which involve a lot more work and expense than the provisional patent application. If you do not file the corresponding utility or design patent application within a year, the provisional patent application expires. However I don't think there's anything to stop you from repeating the process, if you want to keep on claiming "patent pending" for another year.
    Kro, wave rider and bucephylus like this.
  3. micguy


    May 17, 2011
    I have 7 utility patents and a couple more have been applied for. What I see on their website is a baffle with 2 ports. As there’s lots of prior art, you can’t get a utility patent on the idea of 2ports. You can apply for one, but you won’t get one., unless there’s something else novel going on there.

    They might get a design paten (a patent on the appearance). Those are easy to get, but also easy to get around.
  4. bucephylus

    bucephylus Supporting Member Commercial User

    Aug 18, 2002
    General Manager TecPadz LLC
    Not sure why you cats are all fired up about this; but, there are a number of inaccurate posts in this thread.

    Pat Pending means you have submitted a patent application for examination. You may or may not have your claims allowed during the examination; but, the submission of the application allows the company to label related products patent pending. No big deal.

    As to people patenting something they did not invent: that’s a rather vague statement. It does happen that an inventor will think they invented something, only to find out there was prior art that they missed. One tries not to miss prior art; but, it happpens. You try not to miss it, because that translates into a waste of money. So, people don’t do it on purpose. Or, posters may be referring to people stealing technology and claiming invention. That does NOT happen “all the time,” and there are serious financial and legal consequences when it does happen. Treble damages when it is intentional.

    I am inventor or co-inventor on about 50 patents related to materials and processes on the chips in your cell phone, dating back to 1987 or so. My recent patent interaction for my vibration isolation device revealed one thing that has definitely changed at USPTO. It used to be that USPTO was staffed with examiners who were scientists or engineers with some level of familiarity with the topical area. But, some time in the late 2000’s, it seems that the National Labs created “sophisticated” graphical search engines, which has allowed USPTO to employ less specifically skilled “technical” folks as examiners. My recent examiner was previously an insurance litigation attorney. Intelligent, but not technically informed. The examination thus included some rather surreal misinterpretations of images in the prior art that required rather head scratching back and forth exchanges. Brave new world. Technical expertise notwithstanding, examination is still thorough and a very serious (and expensive) process. Comments to the contrary are simply uninformed.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2018
    PillO, 12BitSlab, neal davis and 8 others like this.
  5. Walking


    Apr 5, 2010
    And then neglect to update your web page for many more years... ;)
    PillO, Omega Monkey and agedhorse like this.
  6. bucephylus

    bucephylus Supporting Member Commercial User

    Aug 18, 2002
    General Manager TecPadz LLC
    That is quite simply and totally false.

    If you are actually interested, the European Patent Agency has a much better search tool on the espacenet site.
    PillO likes this.
  7. bucephylus

    bucephylus Supporting Member Commercial User

    Aug 18, 2002
    General Manager TecPadz LLC
    No comment on this specific product. Don’t use any of this company’s products. They may or may not ultimately have a patentable invention. Carrots.
  8. bobcruz


    Mar 10, 2004
    Maybe the "invention" is the use of ports that are way too small? That would be something no rational cab designer would have done before so no prior art...as someone mentioned, the invention doesn't have to be any good. :rollno:

    Jeff Scott likes this.
  9. Korladis

    Korladis Inactive

    Why would I?

    When there are so many options for cabs built by people who aren't shady, and don't take people's money and then never deliver, why on earth would I buy one from someone with such baggage?
    bobcruz likes this.
  10. It's a guitar cab, anything goes.
    Omega Monkey, bobcruz and Stumbo like this.
  11. Jeff Scott

    Jeff Scott Rickenbacker guru..........

    Apr 11, 2006
    Ah, so those "ports" are for looks, only. :smug:
  12. Well, Disney wasn't the only reason. It also had to do with the Berne Convention (which USA acceded to in 1989), and making American copyright laws the same as in (most of) Europe (and rest of the modern world). And it wasn't doubled, it was increased from 50 to 70 years after the death of the author (copyright holder). (More for works of corporate authorship).
  13. Wisebass


    Jan 12, 2017
    Lost in Space
    No Jeff! :D As mentioned on their site, they "let the speakers breath"!!!!! :laugh::roflmao:


  14. Wisebass


    Jan 12, 2017
    Lost in Space
    Hi Stumbo :)

    By reading this thread, I found out that

    I probably won' t get a patent for my last invention :(


    That 's not cool! :laugh::laugh::laugh:

  15. saabfender

    saabfender Inactive

    Jan 10, 2018
    So I should roll down to my local pawn shop, buy a 2x10 auto subwoofer box, toss in a couple Eminence speakers and call it good? Or amazing? Or patented?
  16. ficelles


    Feb 28, 2010
    Devon, England
    Identical to my 2003 cab except in orientation, port size and colour. IP infringement!
  17. Geri O

    Geri O

    Sep 6, 2013
    Florence, MS
    Must be a fan, for whatever reason.
  18. ahc


    Jul 31, 2009
    No. Virginia
    But... but... they defy gravity. I wonder what the Thiele/Small parameters for that are. And can you plot that in Winisd???
  19. seamonkey


    Aug 6, 2004

    Good one! ;)
    Isn't this what it's all about?
    Make up a problem, make up a solution to the made up problem, then sell it as some feature nobody else has? For some reason, the bass market is ripe for this type of marketing. :)
    bobcruz likes this.
  20. seamonkey


    Aug 6, 2004
    Idea for a new patent

    Using the newer quiet air compressors to blow air out a through a nozzle to get that "pant flapping effect". In a good port design you'd want to eliminate air turbulence but then you loose pant flapping. A tank of air could add the air turbulence back in and guarantee that pants will flap.

    Ooops - I mentioned it here. It's now prior art. ;)
    bobcruz likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.