# Patentable (your opinion)?



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

“Wireless Model Railroad Control System”

BlueRail patent application is here: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20140360399.PGNR.

You may have to paste the address in: "http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20140360399.PGNR"
Bob


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

I PDF with drawings here : http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140360399.pdf.
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

RT_Coker said:


> I PDF with drawings here : http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20140360399.pdf.
> Bob


what exactly is novel about what you're claiming?

isn't wireless control of model railroad locomotives using wireless hand held devices already common?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Greg

Most of the wireless hand held devices used on DCC layouts 
are by RF or other beam running through the main 
standard main controller and signals
go out on the track to loco decoders.

The system Bob is showing 'talks' back and forth directly
with the locos and other devices. The track supplies power
only.

Don


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

DonR said:


> The system Bob is showing 'talks' back and forth directly
> with the locos and other devices.


one reason to have something central in communications is to allocate a communication channel, whether it be frequency, time, code or simply space (distance), between the two endpoints.

does he describe a method for determining allocating the channel between the locomotive and handheld when there is more than one locomotive/handheld?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I'll defer to Bob and a couple other members who have
been doing quite a bit of work and research in this
area.

Don


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

gregc said:


> what exactly is novel about what you're claiming?
> 
> isn't wireless control of model railroad locomotives using wireless hand held devices already common?


This is a "BlueRail" patent application; not mine! I am doing open-source DBTC which is very similar.
You will need to ask "BlueRail" about the application.
Bob


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

My opinion is this patent application does not meet the criteria for a patent.
See prior-art here: http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway/OzDcc/DWiDCC/DWiDCC-AMRM.htm
Bob


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Do you mean from the point of view of the PO or from people with common sense.

A relative who worked in the PO remarked that not all examiners are diligent and just want to "clear their desk".


----------



## hirailer (Oct 24, 2013)

DonR said:


> Greg
> 
> Most of the wireless hand held devices used on DCC layouts
> are by RF or other beam running through the main
> ...


The RailPro system has been out there for several years and does exactly that. It communicates directly from the controller to the locomotive module. Again, track supplies only the power. This system is very easy to install and operate, no cv's, no test tracks, no programming headaches. Multiple engine lashups can be done in seconds.

Cheers
Mel


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Patents are pretty much granted willy-nilly nowadays. I ran across that with my Super-Chuffer and MTH. I doubt they have an enforceable patent, but it would cost more to fight it than to just pay them a royalty.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

I'm not sure. The devil is in the tiny details and its far too difficult to see without a TON of work here. I will say that I'm involved from time to time as an expert witness on digital control systems and it often surprises me what _does _get granted a patent.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Patent and intellectual property law is a deep and detailed, and extremely complicated subject. If we're just debating ideas, fine, but please don't use this for any kind of legal or business advice. Get a real lawyer involved. The ones I know are smart, well-educated people. It's the personal injury lawyers (okay, some defense attorneys too) who give the whole profession a bad name.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

The problem with a "real lawyer" is unless you plan on making lots of money with your idea, the costs will far outweigh the benefits!  Just saying _good morning_ to a "real lawyer" will cost you.


----------



## jprampolla (Oct 16, 2011)

Hi Folks,

If BlueRail Trains gets a patent, would that mean any open-source Bluetooth remote control system of a model train is illegal, or is BlueRail/Bachmann just protecting the look and feel of their apps, and preventing the theft of their original circuit design? After all, we have Windows and Linux, one proprietary and the other open-source.

I think we need a patent attorney to chime in!

Take care, Joe.


----------



## GrapevineFlyer (Sep 7, 2015)

*Not so worried*

From the interviews I've listened to from BlueRail, the reason they wrote their patent was so they could develop the product without being blocked. It also gives a manufacturer (like Bachmann) the confidence they need to get involved. There are a number of manufacturers out there who might have created this same patent and prevented anyone from ever pursuing it (which would have been bad for everyone). Also, it seems Bachmann is allowing BlueRail to develop plugin boards that target do-it-yourselfers (which I like). Bachmann has never been involved in any litigation in the past that I am aware of.

I don't think everyone who writes a patent is inherently evil or out to stifle innovation. By getting a large manufacturer (like Bachmann) involved, technology like this can become available quickly, rather than waiting for many years of loosely organized open-source effort (which as we all know can be frustratingly slow). Anyway, from what I've heard, BlueRail doesn't seem interested in preventing small developers from pursuing their interests.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Further to gunrunnerjohn's and CTVRR's comments get a Lawyer involved has to be the way to go but you need to certain of your ground. As I think I commented on another thread of yours on this subject it seems to me you're trying to reinvent the wheel, not just a better mousetrap.


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

GrapevineFlyer said:


> From the interviews I've listened to from BlueRail, the reason they wrote their patent was so they could develop the product without being blocked. It also gives a manufacturer (like Bachmann) the confidence they need to get involved. There are a number of manufacturers out there who might have created this same patent and prevented anyone from ever pursuing it (which would have been bad for everyone). Also, it seems Bachmann is allowing BlueRail to develop plugin boards that target do-it-yourselfers (which I like). Bachmann has never been involved in any litigation in the past that I am aware of.
> 
> I don't think everyone who writes a patent is inherently evil or out to stifle innovation. By getting a large manufacturer (like Bachmann) involved, technology like this can become available quickly, rather than waiting for many years of loosely organized open-source effort (which as we all know can be frustratingly slow). Anyway, from what I've heard, BlueRail doesn't seem interested in preventing small developers from pursuing their interests.


The referenced patent application is highly unlikely to become a patent (in my opinion), and if it did, it would loss in any litigation (in my opinion) because of well document “prior-art”.

I have never heard of anybody trying to get a patent so that “they could develop the product without being blocked”. Just publishing the idea several reliable places should be sufficient and a lot less expensive.

The effect of “patent pending” on an announced product stifles competition. Which it has done in this case by at least two developers that I know of.

I am glad that these companies (and companies in general) are doing DBTC, the more the better.
Bob


----------



## GrapevineFlyer (Sep 7, 2015)

If you've never heard of such a thing Bob, it's called a "defensive patent", and it's a very common thing.

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28565/defensive-patent


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

GrapevineFlyer said:


> If you've never heard of such a thing Bob, it's called a "defensive patent", and it's a very common thing.
> 
> https://www.techopedia.com/definition/28565/defensive-patent


Thanks! I will admit my ignorance on this "defensive patent" point.
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

as I suggested earlier, i'm not sure how useful a system that can communicate with only one train (one or more locomotives) is. Regardless if it it wireless and/or communicates in both directions. I believe any useful system must allow control of multiple trains and therefore requires some way of having multiple controllers communicate with different trains

as for patents -- when I works for AT&T Bell Labs, a patent attorney explained that they (AT&T) were being approached by another company for violating that companies patents. In response, the AT&T attorneys pulled out their patent portfolio and suggested (lack of a better term) that the other company was violating several of AT&T's patents. The other company backed down. Apparently this is very common.

I believe patent law and practice is complicated.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

All the big cell phone companies have been buying up patent libraries for that very reason. The company with the biggest patent portfolio has the biggest hammer when it comes to these disputes.


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

gregc said:


> ... how useful a system that can communicate with only one train (one or more locomotives) is. ...


I do not know of any Direct-Bluetooth-Train-Control systems (existing or in development) that have this limitation!
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

RT_Coker said:


> I do not know of any Direct-Bluetooth-Train-Control systems (existing or in development) that have this limitation!
> Bob


it's not obvious to me how such a system would work. If you have several locos w/ a bluetooth decoder, how would you select which loco to control?


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

gregc said:


> it's not obvious to me how such a system would work. If you have several locos w/ a bluetooth decoder, how would you select which loco to control?


Basically "locos w/a Bluetooth decoder" have a changeable name (equivalent to an address in DCC).

Just so the relative “prior-art” of the reference patent application is not lost in all the side discussions, here it is again: http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway...WiDCC-AMRM.htm
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

i believe this is a description of the patent: US20140360399.


It specifies two-way communication. But since there are wired bi-directional communication systems, I would think that wireless bi-directional communication would be obvious (not innovative).

It also makes claims for use of a smart(?) device, a graphical user interface and inertia measurement. There's no restriction on using bluetooth technology.

i would think that if such a patent were granted, it would stifle development of wireless model railroad technology, something the NMRA should address.


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

I know very little about the NMRA, but from what I have seen they do not seem to be very independent of the major manufacturers.

There is talk of this patent application being a "defensive patent", which has no official definition, and appears to be a term used to _______[I don’t know]. I think I would trust that a patent was “defensive” about as much as I would Russia’s recent “defensive” military moves. A loaded “defensive” weapon is typically more dangerous than a loaded offensive weapon.
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

RT_Coker said:


> There is talk of this patent application being a "defensive patent", which has no official definition, and appears to be a term used to _______[I don’t know].


if you have a clever (novel) idea and are unsure if it is already patented or if you'd like patent protection, then it would make sense to apply for a very specific patent of your idea (e.g. a bi-directional wireless train control system using bluetooth). The patent process would presumably discover any existing patents the idea may infringe on or ultimately provide protection.

submitting a broad patent for any type of bi-directional wireless control system doesn't sound "defensive". It sounds more like patenting an idea which would require licensing fees.

Lenz presumably patented a DCC system and gave the (use of ?) the patent to the NMRA which made it public. This allowed multiple manufacturers to develop products without any licensing restrictions.


----------



## GrapevineFlyer (Sep 7, 2015)

*Summary of the situation*

Here's my summary of the situation: You have a startup company that seems to be pretty good with a certain technology (Bluetooth Smart). They write a patent pending and partner with a company with no history of litigation (Bachmann) and give interviews saying they have no interest in suing people (and just want to get the product out).

The NMRA has backed itself into a corner with DCC. The NMRA's protocol has a community of manufacturers built around it (Digitrax, NCE, and everyone else) and there is no simple way to migrate this community of manufacturers in a new direction. Meanwhile, the hobby shrinks yearly and the average age of its users goes up each year. Finally we have a small startup attempting to cut through the red tape and introduce something new. If one attempted to move this technology forward by pitching "open source" to the NMRA, imagine how painfully slow it might happen (if ever). The NMRA is like Congress, with it's top membership heavily weighted towards the current DCC manufacturers, incapable of adapting quickly. The NMRA doesn't need to fight or try to prevent this from happening - they just need to sit back, see if it works (once its released), and if it does figure out a way to fit it into their standards.

We should be relieved that the existing manufacturers with a history of litigation (MTH, Lionel, KAM industries) aren't involved in this. If the startup developer hadn't written a patent pending, surely one of these companies would have. I think anyone working on Open Source projects should be relieved of this as well. 

As for the comment by GregC above, I have a copy of the "Patent It Yourself" book (a very popular guide book for startups writing patents) and it very specifically instructs you to write your patent as broadly as possible, and to list as many ideas and applications as you have for your technology. This increases your chance of coming out with a patent in the end (once the USPTO has whittled things away).


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

*Do Not Miss the Prior-Art*

I agree the future of the hobby desperately needs a viable alternative to DCC, and I support such efforts. 

I see no problem with a reasonable defensive-patent-application as long as it does not become an unjustified-patent. Some of the model-train-patents that exist are such things (in my opinion). This means that I will do what I can to publicize what I see as a potentially unjustified-patent. Just so the relative “prior-art” of the reference patent application is not lost in all the side discussions, here it is again: http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway...WiDCC-AMRM.htm 

The liberal use of “patent pending” by a major manufacturer in early (~Nov 2014) product announcements does have a detrimental effect on competitive products no matter how “friendly” the manufacturer is perceived to be.
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

GrapevineFlyer said:


> As for the comment by GregC above, I have a copy of the "Patent It Yourself" book (a very popular guide book for startups writing patents) and it very specifically instructs you to write your patent as broadly as possible, and to list as many ideas and applications as you have for your technology. This increases your chance of coming out with a patent in the end (once the USPTO has whittled things away).


my comment was respect to a "defensive" patent.

The attorney at Bell Labs told me you generally try to patent everything possible with your initial claim and make each successive claim less general. For example, the patent office allows the patent for the safety pin made of metal instead of the initial patent for any/all possible fastening devices (e.g. paper clips). 

the wireless patent I referenced didn't seem to be structured this way. it seemed to be making three broad but similar claims (wireless, not just blue tooth) with extensions in subsequent claims (e.g. graphical user I/F).


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

gregc said:


> my comment was respect to a "defensive" patent.
> 
> The attorney at Bell Labs told me you generally try to patent everything possible with your initial claim and make each successive claim less general. For example, the patent office allows the patent for the safety pin made of metal instead of the initial patent for any/all possible fastening devices (e.g. paper clips).
> 
> the wireless patent I referenced didn't seem to be structured this way. it seemed to be making three broad but similar claims (wireless, not just blue tooth) with extensions in subsequent claims (e.g. graphical user I/F).


Not all patent applications are written and managed by experts in patent application - in fact, most aren't, in my experience.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Whenever talk turns to patents I always think of this cartoon by Charles Addams, creator of the Addams Family:


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Cycleops said:


> Whenever talk turns to patents I always think of this cartoon by Charles Addams, creator of the Addams Family:


I love it!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I'm not sure whether I agree with some of this or not. I can't really argue with the fact that the NMRA moves with great deliberation when it comes to changing standards, yet I see their problem, too. They don't just want to jump in and willy nilly endorse every new idea that comes to market.

Do we NEED to replace DCC? No. It's a robust and mature technology that works very well. That said, DCC was developed when PC's were in their infancy. Technology has leaped ahead since then. Should we be looking for ways to take advantage of these advances. Absolutely. But I think we need to look a little farther than just reinventing DCC with smartphones and bluetooth. Processors, graphics, and storage space have come so far since the original standards were written (I write this on a tablet that is much more powerful than my first IBM XT) that perhaps some inventive person can really think out of the box and come up with something revolutionary enough to make us all want to chuck DCC in favor of it.

And one final point. I don't think the hobby is about to drop dead, or is even in a decline. New products are released daily, and people are buying them. Many of the indicators that people like to point to and say, "the hobby is dying" are really just the manifestations of broader demographic trends. Periodical circulation is down across the board, not just in the hobby, because we live in an age of instant gratification, and people don't want to wait for a monthly periodical when the internet puts much more information right at your fingertips. The average age of modelers is increasing because Gen X and Millenials are less numerous than the generations which preceded them. Also, this hobby doesn't lend itself well to the teen and twenty-something lifestyle. New members take up the hobby in their tweens or early teens (sometimes earlier), leave it for a while during high school, college and early career / family years, then take it up again later when they are more settled and financially stable, often with a view to bringing their kids in.

I certainly don't want the hobby to stagnate, but imdon't think we need to wring our hands in anguish just yet.


----------



## RT_Coker (Dec 6, 2012)

Just so the relative “prior-art” of the reference patent application is not lost in all the side discussions, here it is again: http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway/OzDcc/DWiDCC/DWiDCC-AMRM.htm
Bob


----------



## gregc (Apr 25, 2015)

RT_Coker said:


> Just so the relative “prior-art” of the reference patent application is not lost in all the side discussions, here it is again: http://members.iinet.net.au/~backway...WiDCC-AMRM.htm
> Bob


link doesn't work for me. i think the ... is the problem


----------



## GrapevineFlyer (Sep 7, 2015)

Did anyone attend the NMRA convention and get a feel for if the NMRA's new standards with Open-LCB seem promising? I heard one discussion how RailCom is supposed to be a possible path to bi-directional DCC, but I also heard a manufacturer describe it as buggy and not too useful at this stage.


----------

