0

I came across a patent that proposes an idea for a device, and in the background section of the patent, other similar devices that were published in conferences (not even journals) were cited. Seriously nothing unique about the proposed design - not a jaw-dropping.

So consider the following scenario. You are sitting on a front porch, and you come up with an idea.

How do you know if it is worth to be filed as a patent, submitted to a journal, or presented at a conference?

Also, I came across a number of patents, and they were merely theoretical, without proving if the concept works flawlessly. So, how does this concept convince the people in the patent office? I’d like to know what elements make a patent too.

closed as off-topic by Anonymous Physicist, Scientist, Jon Custer, Enthusiastic Engineer, scaaahu Aug 31 at 6:03

  • This question does not appear to be about academia within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • this question is too broad and big - a first step is a thorough patent literature research and then there are different reasons/strategies to file a patent or not. A patent does not prove something scientifically, it's rather a concept with a distinct purpose. – user48953094 Aug 27 at 9:50
  • 1
    @user847982 Why is the question too broad and big? – user2768 Aug 27 at 9:52
  • @user2768 you answered the why, not the when...imho ;-) – user48953094 Aug 27 at 9:55
  • 1
  • 2
    @AnonymousPhysicist (I could ask an on-topic breathing question, but I digress) Academics are funded by bodies that expect commercial breakthroughs; the relationship with IP seems intrinsic. – user2768 Aug 27 at 10:16
2

How do you know if it is worth to be filed as a patent, submitted to a journal, or presented at a conference?

To commercialise, file a patent. To disseminate, publish a journal article or a conference paper.*

* Distinctions between journal/conference publication is dealt with elsewhere and, given the context, is seemingly out of scope.

[Many patent ideas] were merely theoretical, without proving if the concept works flawlessly. So, how does this concept convince the people in the patent office?

US patent law demands usefulness

...an invention is "useful" if it...is capable of use...the doctrine prevents the
patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices...

and European patent law demands industrial application

...a patent can only be granted...for an invention which can be made... 

These requirements should prevent granting patents for theoretical ideas.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.