PRIOR ART SEARCH FOR THE CHOCOLATE WETSUIT

(You may have guessed by now that my tongue was in my cheek when I wrote the original invention scenario. However, it turned out that there is a significant body of relevant art around this idea. Below is what I found.)

 The following is a very general discussion of how we would look at the claim for this particular invention and what we found.

Description of the Subject Invention (SI).

The first step is to describe the subject invention in terms of its structure and function. The chocolate wetsuit claim is for a product, so we are looking for prior art that matches its physical structure. The physical structure is the bit of the claim that generally comes after the words "comprising…" or "consisting of…" if they are used. However a search of the function may also be important in finding how existing structures solve the problem (or achieve the utility) that our structure does. It also provides for art that may provide an obvious step between it and our SI. The function is described in the preamble to the claim (as in "A device for…").

The SI of the chocolate wet suit has the following physical characteristics:

• A thermal reservoir made of a material with a well defined phase change temperature and latent heat requirement.
• A structure for holding the reservoir material (which we have defined as cells, but could as easily be a foam or other open type of structure such a s a nonwoven fabric.
• A container for holding the thermal reservoir into the cells. We have described a trilaminate in which the thermal material is the middle layer. However any way of sealing the reservoir material should be considered.

The SI has the following functional characteristics:

• It stabilizes the temperature of the surrounding medium.
• It keeps something warm in a cool environment.
• It is flexible enough to be worn as a garment.

We can also describe the invention in terms of the patent class(es) that it falls in. 

U. S. Classes 165/10 and 252/70 fit the broad category of our SI, and a search of these classes yields several patents that describe the concept of thermal storage materials.

Class 252 is for compositions in general, and 165 is the class for “heat exchange”. The sub classes 70 and 10 narrow the class down to the type of product we are describing.

Class 2/2.15 is the class into which wet suits tend to fall.

The patents that are listed below were found using the class numbers mentioned above, and keywords taken from the description of the SI.

Summary of Search

Patents have been found that describe and claim the invention in very broad terms, including a claim as a diver’s wetsuit. More specific and practical limitations placed on the concept as a wetsuit material will probably lead to viable patents. Those patents may still fall under the scope of the claims of the relevant art found here.

Subsets of Prior Art.

 The subsets of potential prior art that we consider are:

Existing Commercial and Technical (non patent) Art.

Is the subject for sale already, or has it been described in technical or commercial publications, and if so when?

Our SI falls under the general category of wet suits for Scuba divers. These are generally offered for sale in commercial magazines such as "Scuba Diver", "Skin Diver" or "Sport Diver." Major manufacturers include companies like Harvies, Whites, O’Neil and Henderson.

A search of their product literature shows that no thermal wet suits that use our idea are currently offered for sale. Copies of the above magazines going back 7 years similarly show no prior art. We do note, however, that titanium has been added to wet suits in order to provide a "heat reflective barrier" to body heat. The testers of wet suits are skeptical of this claim. Go here for a commercial review of wet suit prior art that has also appeared in print.

U.S. Patents

A U.S. patent list is shown here, with links to the USPTO web site to recover the patents. A set of patents in which Buckley is shown as inventor describes our concept almost exactly. The independent claim and one dependent claim related to our SI are:

 1. An apparatus for metabolic cooling and for insulation of a user in a cold environment having an ambient environmental temperature which is below a comfortable skin temperature, said apparatus comprising a flexible composite material, comprising a flexible matrix material having a thermal storage material capable of storing thermal energy as the latent heat of phase change dispersed therein, said thermal storage material having a phase transition temperature which is equal to or below normal skin temperature and above the ambient environmental temperature, said flexible composite material being in thermal contact with the skin of the user so as to provide a thermal environment at a temperature above said ambient environmental temperature for said user of said apparatus for an extended time period, said thermal storage material further providing a heat sink to absorb metabolic heat of said user, and said metabolic heat serving to recharge said thermal storage material, thereby increasing the duration of said time period for which said thermal storage material provides said thermal environment at a temperature above said ambient environmental temperature.

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein said thermal storage material has a thermal mass at least equal to the difference between the heat loss from said thermal storage material to said ambient environment and the metabolic heat absorbed by said thermal storage material during a time period of a predetermined duration.

Of all the patent literature that we have searched, these claims describe most closely what we want the chocolate wetsuit to do.

Note that there are other patents in the list that describe the use of “thermal storage” materials that use latent heat as a means of storing thermal energy. However, these were apparently either not invoked by the examiner in considering Buckley’s applications, or the examiner’s objections were overcome during prosecution. We could obtain a copy of the prosecution history of the Buckley patent to see exactly how the examiner dealt with the application.

European Patents and Rest of the World Patents

 We will not go here in this example, but basically the conceptual approach is the same as we used for the U.S. patent search.

 Implications of the Search for Our Invention Proposal

The existence of the Buckley patents makes our life a little more complicated than we had originally hoped. As the concept has already been patented we need to reconsider our strategy.

For example, there are still some options open to us. They may require some extra work, and inventive steps, but will probably yield patentable material.

· Consider a process patent for a method to manufacture the structure of our SI. Buckley does not seem to have claimed a way of manufacturing the structure that she claims.

· Recalculate and redesign the physical property limits required for our invention to be successful. For example, Buckley’s claims are very broad, and do not set limits, for example, on how thick a material needs to be to be successful, or what its latent heat needs to be, or details around its construction. The claim for a wetsuit does not include any indication of whether all of the thermal storage materials in Buckley are suitable for wetsuit use from many points of view. Can we refine our invention to overcome a weakness or limitation in Buckley’s invention?

· Try building on what is already known about heat loss from humans in water. There is an interesting article by Alex Brylske in Dive Training, July 2001, page 70 – 80 that describes the parts of the body that lose heat fastest. The invention could be tailored to these body areas, for example.

The result will be a patent that further defines and limits the invention that is described in the Buckley patents, but also provides specific protection for a wetsuit design that works and is marketable. It may also require that we license from Buckley in order to be able to sell the material.