Patent #6360693: Animal Toy Invention - Simple, Useful & Entertaining!

  • Thread starter BobG
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Patent
In summary, this patent for a sideways swinging dog toy was developed by zoobies and is likely to result in many lawsuits because kids will be smacking into each other. The inventor, however, is likely to make more money from licensing the patent than from the toy itself.
  • #1
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
352
86
The white-out thread (plus memories of Patent #4,669,216 ) got me going and I came across this: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/animal_toy.html [Broken]

Simple. Useful. And entertaining, too! What a great invention! (My dog, Zoie, seconds that opinion.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
jimmysnyder said:
And this thread reminds me of this patent for swinging sideways on a swing.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...T&s1=6368227.PN.&OS=PN/6368227&RS=PN/6368227"

I can see some huge liability issues with this invention - kids will start smacking into each other right and left and a few will smack right into a tree! He'll pay out way more in lawsuits than he'll ever earn from this invention.

See, the problem is that some people think good ideas just grow on trees. You have to put some serious thought into some inventions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
BobG said:
Patent #6360693[/URL][/QUOTE]
I'm frankly outraged. This technology presented in this patent was developed by zoobies and constitutes an important component of our brush shelters.

[PLAIN]http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/Uintah_History&CISOPTR=1069
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
:rofl: I just read Bob's link. I have some of those animal toys in my backyard.
 
  • #7
Evo said:
He got a patent for this?
I don't issue 'em, I just laugh at 'em. A kid thought of the idea and his father, being a patent lawyer, saw it through. You can't force the patent office to give you a patent, they have their own way of doing things. If you apply for a patent and get it, then by definition, your idea was good enough for a patent.
 
  • #8
The fact that the kid got a patent and hist father is a patent lawyer says more about how the system works, not the merits of the patent.
 
  • #9
zoobyshoe said:
I'm frankly outraged. This technology presented in this patent was developed by zoobies and constitutes an important component of our brush shelters.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/Uintah_History&CISOPTR=1069

Those don't appear to be the same object as the inventor's. They have a solid main section with a longitudinal length extending a predetermined distance, but they appear to lack the two protusions extending along a second and third longitudinal axis not parallel to the first. That makes all the difference in the world.


Plus, if you read the actual patent really, really carefully, the actual invention is imbedding scents and flavors into the toy. The similarity to a stick is intentional since the dog should be able to identify the toy to be retrieved by scent alone (the flavor is positive reinforcement during training the dog to retrieve objects based on scent).

This is what happens when you hire a patent attorney that spends so much time learning legal language that he forgets to look out his window once in awhile. People laugh at you.
 
  • #10
jim mcnamara said:
The fact that the kid got a patent and hist father is a patent lawyer says more about how the system works, not the merits of the patent.
What does it say about how the system works? You should be aware that the patent office passes judgement on the originality of inventions, not the quality.
 
  • #11
Evo said:
:rofl: I just read Bob's link. I have some of those animal toys in my backyard.

I hope you paid for them; otherwise you should put them back where they came from.

Surely, you don't have one of these, though - http://www.invention-protection.com/pdf_patents/pat7037243.pdf.

This looks like a good idea. It's safer than a regular jump rope because you won't trip yourself with the rope - even on those difficult crossover moves.
 
  • #12
Oh my God.....we are a crazy nation.
 
  • #13
BobG said:
Those don't appear to be the same object as the inventor's. They have a solid main section with a longitudinal length extending a predetermined distance, but they appear to lack the two protusions extending along a second and third longitudinal axis not parallel to the first. That makes all the difference in the world.
Claim #1, the broadest claim in this patent, says that this "animal toy" has a solid main section, at least one protrusion and is adapted for floating in the water.


Plus, if you read the actual patent really, really carefully, the actual invention is imbedding scents and flavors into the toy. The similarity to a stick is intentional since the dog should be able to identify the toy to be retrieved by scent alone (the flavor is positive reinforcement during training the dog to retrieve objects based on scent).
Clearly, you've never smelled a zoobie or smelled or tasted a piece of a zoobie brush shelter.
 
  • #14
BobG said:
The white-out thread (plus memories of Patent #4,669,216 ) got me going and I came across this: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/animal_toy.html [Broken]

Simple. Useful. And entertaining, too! What a great invention! (My dog, Zoie, seconds that opinion.)

Things like that may start to get harder to slip past an examiner very soon. A new rule was supposed to go into effect Nov 1, but there's currently an injunction against it while folks fight the patent office about that rule (it would put an unfair burden on small inventors who don't have the money to pay an attorney for something that they would previously have been able to file on their own). The rule is supposed to require the patent application include all the prior art searches. Currently, it's the job of the examiner to catch if there is prior art it infringes upon, not the filer. The large firms will already do a prior art search, but that's just to make sure it's patentable before they spend a lot of time working on it, but nobody gets penalized if you miss something (other than potentially not getting the patent, or having to revise your claims).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is Patent #6360693 for?

Patent #6360693 is for an animal toy invention that is simple, useful, and entertaining.

2. Who is the inventor of Patent #6360693?

The inventor of Patent #6360693 is not specified, as the patent is for an animal toy invention and not a specific person.

3. What makes this animal toy invention unique?

This animal toy invention is unique in its simplicity, usefulness, and entertainment value. It is designed to be easy to use and provide hours of fun for children and adults alike.

4. How does Patent #6360693 benefit the toy industry?

Patent #6360693 benefits the toy industry by providing a new and innovative toy that can bring joy and entertainment to consumers. It also opens up possibilities for other inventors to create similar and improved animal toys.

5. Can the animal toy invention be used for educational purposes?

Yes, the animal toy invention can be used for educational purposes. Its simple design and interactive nature make it a great tool for teaching children about different animals and their behaviors.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
Back
Top