Browse Author:

Patent Drafting: The most valuable patent focuses on structural uniqueness of an invention

From a conceptual standpoint is would seem logical to assume that writing text to describe an invention ought to be easy for the inventor of the invention. While that probably makes sense in theory, in reality, it just doesn’t play out that way. It can be enormously difficult for inventors to describe their own inventions. This is true not because the inventor doesn’t know what they’ve invented, or even because the inventor is not in the best position to explain the invention. Indeed, the inventor of a new and useful invention is absolutely in the best position to describe the invention. The problem lies with the reality that most inventors simply don’t understand what needs to be described in order to satisfy the U.S. patentability requirements.

For example, most inventors can write volumes about why they came up with the invention, but why the invention was made isn’t particularly relevant to patentability.

Similarly, inventors are very good at describing how their inventions can be used and why their invention is superior from a usability standpoint to anything available in the marketplace or previously known. The trouble is describing how an invention can be used, while a prerequisite, will not distinguish a tangible invention from the prior art.

Before moving forward let’s recall that in order to satisfy the enablement requirement in a patent application it is necessary for the drafter of the patent application, whether a patent attorney, patent agent or the inventor themselves, to describe in great detail how the invention can be both made and used so that someone of relevant skill in the particular art or science will be able to understand how the invention is both made and used. This being the law, it is obviously necessary to explain how the invention will be used in order to fulfill the patentability requirements. Unfortunately, when inventors represent themselves they nearly universally focus overwhelming on the use and at the expense of actually describing the structure.

It is necessary for an invention directed to a tangible invention —referred to in patent law interchangeably as either the machine, device or apparatus — to be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than in terms of function. This is true because an invention description that only focuses on the manner in which the machine or apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate from the prior art if the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of described tangible invention.

For example, let’s say you invented an ordinary garden shovel. You attempt to distinguish your garden shovel from previously existing garden shovels by saying that your garden shovel is used not to dig, but instead as a stickball bat. By focusing on the different use you are saying nothing about the structure whatsoever. While you can obtain a patent on a new method for using a known product, even copious amounts of information about how to use your garden shovel will not translate into allowing you to claim your shovel.

If you focus your description only on use then at best you can obtain a patent on a new method for using a known product. The problem with those types of claims, however, is that in the hands of an individual new and non-obvious claims to a new method of a known product became difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. The thought process goes like this: Whom will you sue for infringement of your new method patent? In almost all cases, the infringer will be the user, not the manufacturer, distributor or seller of the shovel. But if you define your invention from a structural standpoint instead of a use only standpoint the infringer would not only be the user, but also the manufacturer, distributor, and seller. Being able to control the tangible invention and not just the method of use is what you want to do because it allows you to stop infringement at the source.

Of course, method patents are not useless, and in fact can be quite valuable in the right hands. For example, if you were to invent a cheaper, faster, more efficient way to create a known product then you could sell that known product for less than what others could who are not using your method. These types of commercial methods can become quite valuable and must be distinguished from the typical method of use that an inventor describes.

Still further, in my experience, the method of using an invention that is typically described by an inventor is one that frequently cannot be patented because the method often lack novelty or would be obvious. Returning to our example with the shovel, is it truly new and nonobvious to use a shovel as a stickball bat. Sure, it might not be ideal or even convenient, but substituting one known device for another similar device to accomplish the same task is considered obvious, at least after the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR v. Teleflex.

The moral of the story is this: When describing an invention you absolutely need to describe how the invention will be used, but to obtain the most valuable patent you need to describe the structural uniqueness of your invention.

So where do you go from here? One of the most effective (and economical) ways to disclose structure is to include multiple high quality patent drawings. For more information on patent drawings please see:

By Gene Quinn  via http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/09/patent-drafting-valuable-patent-structural-uniqueness-invention/id=90955/

Can’t get your cell phone charged? Two high school juniors have a solution!

636495595865485919-Sydney-and-Leena-2.jpgWho hasn’t, at some point, searched high and low for their cell-phone charger? When the power bar on the screen creeps toward zero percent, a sense of panic can set in if a power source to recharge is not readily available.
 
Two high school juniors are working on an invention to solve that problem and forever banish that feeling of dread. Plus, it’s a device that could be in great demand in developing countries that lack the infrastructure for charging cell phones.
 
Sydney Conn and Leena Vyas have a simple solution: Use the wind to help charge cell phones.
 
Best friends since the second grade, the teens won $5,000 in the Innovation Connector’s Big Idea Pitch for their Breeze Charger. The competition took place a few weeks ago in Muncie.
 
Conn is a junior at Winchester Community High School and Vyas is schooled at Tippecanoe High School in Tipp City, Ohio, near Dayton. They met in second grade at the Montessori school in Greenville, Ohio, and quickly became friends.
In its basic guise, the entrepreneurs have developed a way to harness the power of the wind to turn a propeller that turns a generator, creating electricity to charge a cell phone or rechargeable battery.
 
Vyas got the idea while on a family trip to India. She noticed many people didn’t have a proper home, but almost everyone had a cell phone. It was a big problem, she said, to find somewhere to recharge the phone. “So the idea came to use the wind created by a moving vehicle to charge the devices,” she said.
 
That can be a car or a rickshaw, either pulled or powered by pedals or a small engine. The two said their invention could be used in developing nations where there is no reliable supply of electricity.
 
Vyas worked on her idea in the seventh grade as a science fair project. Vyas asked Conn to join her in their freshman year, 2015, when they presented their invention at a conference in New York City.
The prototype used a large propeller and a stick from one of those flags people attach to their car windows to show support for their favorite team.Sydney Conn holds two models of a "Breeze Charger," a device to harness the wind to charge cell phones. Conn and her friend, Leena Vyas, were Big Idea Pitch winners for their breeze chargers invention.
 
The second model was much smaller, but too expensive to produce because of the plastic casing. It also didn’t work well in low wind conditions.
 
“So we realized we needed a fan that spun easier,” Vyas said. “And we wanted to be able to use it on bikes so it could be used in Third World countries, even if you didn’t have a car.”
 
Ever resourceful, the pair solved the expense problem by using part of a plastic water bottle, an item that is plentiful in developing countries, they said.
 
 
Models three and four ditched the propeller, after consulting with engineers, in favor of a “muffin fan” that spins much more easily. Think of the fan in the back of an older desktop computer for a visual.
 
The larger fan spins better, Vyas said, “because it had more surface area for the wind to hit.”
 
Conn said a switch was added so the user could recharge a battery for use later or a cell phone.
 
It only takes one minute to charge the battery at 30 mph, and six full charges can juice up an iPhone 7. Flip phones, Conn noted, take less power than iPhones.
 
Conn said her aunt heard about the Innovation Connector’s Big Idea Pitch on the radio and encouraged the girls to enter.
 
In preparation, Conn attended workshops there and the girls worked on a presentation. On the first night of competition, they went up against 40 other entrants, each doing a three-minute presentation or pitch. They advanced into the top five.
 
The top five (actually six were chosen) moved on to the Excellence in Innovation Awards Banquet where they presented their ideas to about 350 community movers and shakers and a panel of judges. Conn and Vyas were the youngest presenters.
 
“They had a special ‘it’ factor,” said Ted Baker, executive director of the Innovation Connector. “The cool thing is, they won with a great presentation and a well-thought-out product that has meaning to it.”

Shown are some prototype models of "Breeze Chargers" developed by Leena Vyas and Sydney Conn. At left is the original model. At right are the latest versions. The devices use the wind to charge cell phones or batteries.

Did the girls think they would win?
“No!” they both said at once.
 
“We were super nervous. We practiced our pitch probably 50 times before we went,” Conn said.

 

“I would have been a lot more nervous if I was up there by myself,” Vyas added. “Having Sydney there made it a lot better.”
Besides the $5,000 prize, which the pair will split and use for college, they also get to use the Innovation Connector’s marketing, consultation and legal services to further develop the Breeze Charger.
Both girls are thinking about careers, and it’s a good bet theirs will include science.
 
Conn is seeking a career in the medical field, possibly becoming an anesthesiologist.
 
Vyas wants to be an engineer.
 
Their college choices have not been made, but they speak highly of a recent visit to Earlham College, where they met the head of the entrepreneur center.
 
As for the Breeze Charger, the plan is to further develop the design and get it patented.
 
Vyas said they want to make 10 working breeze chargers and give them to people to test out. “Then, once we finalize our design, we hope to send them overseas so people can use them for the main purpose we created them for.”
 
“Our main goal is to help people rather than for us to earn money,” Conn said. “We want to help people in other countries that don’t have the same opportunities that we have in the United States.”
Via http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2017/12/25/cant-get-your-cell-phone-charged-two-high-school-juniors-have-solution/964395001/

Colorado girl, troubled by Flint water crisis more than 1,000 miles away, invents lead detector

Image may contain: 1 person, smilingOutside Denver, a talented 12-year-old is getting national attention. It’s not for her music, it’s for Gitanjali Rao’s contribution to science.

“If my mom asked me what do you want for Christmas, I’d be like, lead,” Gitanjali said.

That’s right, lead, which Gitanjali needed for an invention.

“Imaging living day in and day out drinking contaminated water with dangerous substances like lead. Introducing tethys, the easy to use, fast, accurate, a portable and inexpensive device to detect lead in water,” Gitanjali said in her presentation for the Young Scientist Challenge. She won the national competition for her invention.

It was inspired by a real-world problem. “I’ve been following the Flint water crisis for about two years,” Gitanjali said.

In Flint, Michigan, nearly 100,000 residents drank lead-contaminated water for more than a year.

“Lead is mostly harmful to younger children, about my age — giving them growth defects and potentially damaging their brain,” Gitanjali said.

Gitanjali said that despite living in thousands of miles away from Flint, “that’s not something I want to go through, what the Flint residents went through .. our water quality’s just as important as doctor’s appointments or dentist’s appointments.”

If you’ve never tested your water, Gitanjali said “that’s a big problem!”

No automatic alt text available.With Gitanjali’s device, instead of taking days to send water samples to a lab, her device detects lead in seconds using carbon molecules — and a mobile app.

She’s one of many who love science at school, but one of the few who turned an idea into an invention, said teacher Simi Basu.

“I am so confident that she will be able to take it to the market if we keep providing her help,” Basu said. She said what makes Gitanjali different is that she is a “risk taker — she’s not afraid to fail.”

She said her next project is to create a “happiness meter which measures the amount of serotonin in your body or the amount of gamma rays and I still have to figure out how this works.”

When she does, the science world will be waiting.

Image may contain: one or more people and indoor

12-year-old Colorado girl, troubled by Flint water crisis more than 1,000 miles away, invents lead detector

Outside Denver, a talented 12-year-old is getting national attention. It’s not for her music, it’s for Gitanjali Rao’s contribution to science.
 
“If my mom asked me what do you want for Christmas, I’d be like, lead,” Gitanjali said.
 
That’s right, lead, which Gitanjali needed for an invention.
 
“Imaging living day in and day out drinking contaminated water with dangerous substances like lead. Introducing tethys, the easy to use, fast, accurate, portable and inexpensive device to detect lead in water,” Gitanjali said in her presentation for the Young Scientist Challenge. She won the national competition for her invention.
 
It was inspired by a real-world problem. “I’ve been following the Flint water crisis for about two years,” Gitanjali said.
 
In Flint, Michigan, nearly 100,000 residents drank lead-contaminated water for more than a year.
 
“Lead is mostly harmful to younger children, about my age — giving them growth defects and potentially damaging their brain,” Gitanjali said.
 
Gitanjali said that despite living in thousands of miles away from Flint, “that’s not something I want to go through, what the Flint residents went through .. our water quality’s just as important as doctor’s appointments or dentist’s appointments.”
 
If you’ve never tested your water, Gitanjali said “that’s a big problem!”
 
With Gitanjali’s device, instead of taking days to send water samples to a lab, her device detects lead in seconds using carbon molecules — and a mobile app.
 
She’s one of many who loves science at school, but one of the few who turned an idea into an invention, said teacher Simi Basu.
 
“I am so confident that she will be able to take it to the market if we keep providing her help,” Basu said. She said what makes Gitanjali different is that she is a “risk taker — she’s not afraid to fail.”
 
She said her next project is to create a “happiness meter which measures the amount of serotonin in your body or the number of gamma rays and I still have to figure out how this works.”
 
When she does, the science world will be waiting.
Via https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gitanjali-rao-12-year-old-girl-troubled-by-flint-water-crisis-invents-lead-detector/

Why Innovation Isn’t (Only) About The Product

Innovation isn’t (only) about the product, its also about the business model!

Innovation can be a function of any company or any industry but it’s the disruptors that are innovating on so many fronts which is having such ineradicable impact. They are the ones bucking the old way of doing things for a more modern innovation mindset. If you were to stop somebody on the street and say, “what is innovation what’s innovative?” They may say the iPhone is innovative. Seventy-five percent of the answers you will get will be about a product. Jim says, “Products only develop or deliver 10 percent of the value in an innovation ecosystem. Ninety percent of the value is by innovating around the business model, customer experience, and process.”

A great example of this is Dollar Shave Club. For decades, the shaving category was entirely focused on product innovation, launching new and improved ‘blades’ at an ever-increasing premium price. However, we can’t forget some early product marketing and business model innovation done by Gillette —to essentially give away the handheld razor in order to sell more high margin razor blades. When Dollar Shave Club was launched in 2011, it knew that competing for head-on with Gillette or Schick (razors) in product innovation or for shelve space of retailers wasn’t a smart move. So instead, Dollar Shave Club decided to compete in contrast to the very business model that had historically been Gillette’s strength.Image result for dollar shave club

They didn’t create a revolutionary new razor (product innovation) or try to compete on price. Instead, they disrupted an entire industry with its business model innovation. Yes, they used a funny video (that has since been seen more than 25 million times) on social media to spread the word about great their product is. The anti-marketing-marketing approach of Dollar Shave Club focused on humor, simplicity, and value, instead of the traditional slow-motion shave and hand-on-face messaging of Gillette. And if you were really paying attention during the entire 1:33 second YouTube video, you would have noticed they started with “for a $1 per month we send high-quality razors right to your door” which got culminated with Dollar Shave Club’s $1 billion sale to Unilever.

All that sounds great – a one in a billion (literally) opportunity and you might be right. But there are ways which can you make a difference within your own company when you see an opportunity to create a new business model but face existing systems, structures, and C-Suite power?

First, embrace your idea or concept. Think through how the normal way of doing business is getting in the way of doing business as normal.

Second, create an innovation lab that (1) can’t be thwarted by high-level execs and (2) is left alone to innovate not only products but business models as well.

The next time you’re ready to tackle disruption, don’t make the mistake of just focusing on innovating around your product. Think about tipping the business model to drive an even greater change.

This is an episode you won’t want to miss. For more insights from Jim, listen to our conversation and subscribe to the What’s Next! podcast on Apple Podcasts.

Jim Harris, a principal of strategic advantage with 20 years’ experience as a professional speaker and consultant. Jim speaks internationally at more than 40 conferences a year on topics including innovation and creativity. Jim is also a columnist at The Huffington Post and author of the international best-selling book, Blindsided: How to Spot the Next Breakthrough That Will Change Your Business Forever.

 via https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-innovation-isnt-only-about-the-product_us_5a53e492e4b0f9b24bf319e4

Forbes’ ’30 Under 30′ salutes 15-year-old Munster inventor, scientist, Annie Ostojic

Annie Ostojic

Annie Ostojic began winning state and national recognition for her scientific projects and inventions as a 9-year-old student at Frank Hammond Elementary School.

Recently, Forbes Magazine named the 15-year-old Munster High School sophomore to its “30 Under 30” list joining more than 4,000 past game-changers such as basketball’s LeBron James and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

The youngest named in this year’s energy category, Ostojic is the third-youngest selected for 2018.

Nominations span the world with 15,000 to 20,000 applicants vying for a spot in 20 different categories including art, education, finance, games, healthcare, manufacturing and industry, and science.

According to Forbes Magazine, one “30 under 30” alum serves as a judge in each of the 20 categories, with 30 honorees named in each category. The honorees are vetted by a panel of blue-ribbon judges in their respective fields.

“I don’t know who nominated me,” Ostojic said. “In October, I received an email from Forbes to send in more information.”

On Nov. 14, Forbes notified Ostojic she had been selected, recognizing her as an innovator and student researcher for two inventions — her development of a novel microwave design, and her reflective device using indoor lighting to collect solar power and charge hearing aid batteries.

Ostojic’s invention of a better microwave involves a cavity design that uses cylindrical parabolic reflectors to cook food thoroughly while also saving energy. In 2015, the then-13-year-old Wilbur Wright Middle School student was named the top middle school science student in the nation for that microwave design and winner of the $25,000 Samueli Foundation Prize.

For that Broadcom Masters science competition in Silicon Valley, California, Ostojic was selected from a field more than 2,200 students in the nation by a panel of scientists.

Ostojic said her newest invention honored by Forbes was inspired by a friend whose hearing aids require changing 200 batteries a year.

Her reflective device uses indoor lighting from LED bulbs to generate solar energy that recharges batteries in a process known as photovoltaics.

“One hearing aid battery can recharge in aAnnie Ostojic, Munster High School half hour,” Ostojic said about her invention that could prevent these batteries from being disposed of in landfills. “This is a huge problem. More than 3 billion of these batteries are discarded every year.”

Currently, Ostojic has two provisional patents and met former President Barack Obama twice at the White House after winning national science competitions with her microwave design.

“We went to the EPA and the patent office,” she said about her trips to Washington, D.C. “I also met Bill Nye the Science Guy and was interviewed on NPR.”

As a freshman at Munster High School, Ostojic qualified for the INTEL International Science Fair as one of 14 delegates from Indiana.

“The first time you can compete internationally is when you’re in high school. You have to be picked from your state,” she said of the May 2017 experience in which she was one of four girls in the state delegation.

Some 2,700 delegates from the U.S. and around the world gathered at the Staples Center in Los Angeles for the INTEL science fair, she said. “The purpose is to network with other kids. Each of us was given pins and a lanyard,” she said.

As the students networked, they exchanged pins that were attached to the lanyards.

Wearing her lanyard festooned with pins from various states and nations around the world, Ostojic said, “I’m still in contact with people from India, Singapore, and China.”

Networking also is at the heart of Ostojic’s Forbes recognition.

As a member of Forbes’ “30 Under 30″ list, Ostojic will be able to network with all those previous, current and future innovators and industry leaders.

“For the past seven years, the Forbes ’30 Under 30′ list has emerged as the way that the world discovers the next generation of entrepreneurs and game-changers,” said Randall Lane, editor of Forbes Magazine and creator of the Forbes Under 30 franchise.

“This is the ultimate club: the people that will reinvent every field over the next century.”

Ostojic said she wants to concentrate on helping younger students achieve their dreams through science.

For her own future, she said, “I’m very interested in engineering and the medical field. And working with computers.”

Annie Ostojic of Munster

 

via http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/forbes-under-salutes–year-old-munster-inventor-scientist-annie/article_3b0caab0-2050-5cd8-a1ec-d589cb59f226.html

The Most Iconic (and Patented) Games

Monopoly®

Monopoly patent

In 1935 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued U.S. Patent No. 2,026,082 on Monopoly®, one of the most successful and beloved board games of all time.

As the story goes, Charles Darrow, an unemployed salesman, was struggling to support his family during the Great Depression. It was during this time that he claimed to have fondly remembered summers in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and dreamed about being a real estate mogul. These diversions purportedly lead to him formulating what has become the most popular board game of all time – Monopoly®.

Darrow felt certain he had a hit on his hands so he contacted Parker Brothers, who initially turned him down, but only after explaining that his game violated some 52 fundamental rules of a board successful game. Undeterred, Darrow marketed the game himself. As fate would have it, a friend of Sally Barton, the daughter of Park Brothers’ founder, George Parker, bought the game. At the time Mrs. Barton’s husband was the President of Parker Brothers. One thing lead to another and eventually, Parker Brothers became convinced that this game, with minor modifications, could be a huge success. As a result of his invention, Darrow became the first millionaire game inventor, thanks to royalty payments.

The irony, however, is that Darrow may not have invented the game at all, but rather he may have taken a locally popular game and made only a few changes. By the time Parker Brothers realized that Darrow might not have been the true inventor the game was already a huge success. To protect the game and its investment the decision was made to buy up all patents and copyrights on any related game, thereby ensuring the monopoly on Monopoly®.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rubik’s Cube

One of the most popular games of the 1980s was the Rubik’s Cube, a puzzle game that proved enormously frustrating to many who attempted to unlock its solution.

Invented in 1974 by Hungarian inventor Ern? Rubik, the device was patented in the United States with the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 4,378,116 on March 29, 1983, with the title Spatial logical toy.

On a classic Rubik’s Cube, each of the six faces is covered by nine stickers, each of one of six colors: white, red, blue, orange, green, and yellow. See Wikipedia. A Rubik’s Cube craze captured worldwide attention in the 1980s, with tournaments and even the Guinness Book of World Records recognizing the fastest attempts to solve the puzzle.

Today the Rubik’s Cube has been a part of pop culture for decades, and has once again gained a new following with over 40,000 YouTube pages dedicated to the puzzle game.

 

 

 

 

Battleship

 

Battleship

Another long time favorite game is Battleship. U.S. Patent No. 1,988,301 was issued on January 15, 1935 under the title Game board, the originally patented game does not bear a lot of resemblance to the one that many of us grew up playing.

The patent explains that the invention relates to a perforated game board and pins insertable in the perforations. Although the patent explains that this perforated game board could be used for number of different games, the game we know as Battleship is described.

“The game herein illustrated as in progress might be called Battleships,” the patent reads. The game is described as requiring two players to sit facing each other. “One player, making use preferably of some erasable marking means, such as chalk, places an enclosure or line around a number of arbitrarily chosen series of perforations in groups of 4 (representing a battleship), in groups of 3 (a cruiser). The patent explains that play will go back and forth with each player calling out shots at the unseen target created by the other player. “Play continues thus and when one of the series of perforations within an enclosure has been filled with pins, that ‘ship’ is ‘sunk’.”

 

 

 

Rock’em Sock’em Robots

Rock'em Sock'em Robots

 

U.S. Patent No. 3,235,259, titled Toy boxers, was issued on February 15, 1966. The patent explains: “It is the primary object of this invention to provide a new and amusing toy in the form of a novel boxing game manually operated by opposing players.” Inventors Marvin Glass, Harry Disko and Burton Meyer, assigned the patent to Marvin Glass & Associates, and the first version of the Rock’em Sock’em Robots game was manufactured by Louis Marx and Company in 1964.

Rock’em Sock’em Robots was a game of battling robots, with each player trying to knock the others head off the block. The Red Rocker and the Blue Bomber would battle it out inside the ring.

Designed for two players, this boxing game required each player to a robot by operating the mechanism with his or her thumbs.

 

 

 

 

Twister

Twister has to make this list just because of the patent art on display in Fig. 3 (to the left) alone.

Invented by Charles Foley and Neil Rabens, and assigned to Milton Bradley Company, U.S. Patent No. 3,454,279, titled Apparatus for playing a game wherein the players constitute the game pieces, was patented on July 8, 1969. The patent explains: “The invention relates to a method of and equipment for playing a game of skill and chance for amusement and exercise purposes.”

The game is played with a playing surface the size of a large blanket, which has “a plurality of columns of loci, said loci being of such size and so spaces as to enable the players to place a hand or a foot on any designated locus, the columns of loci being different colors…” Don’t you just love the way patent attorneys write?

A “chance device” such as a spinner is included with the game. Someone not playing (i.e., a referee) will spin the wheel and call out a hand or foot with a corresponding color, which requires the players to twist and contort themselves in order to place the appropriate hand or foot on the color. The object of the game is to move into the appropriate position without falling. If a player falls or touches an elbow or knee to the surface the game is over and the other player declared the winner.

 

 

Simon

Ralph Baer, Hall of Fame inventor of the video console, was also the co-inventor of this extraordinarily popular, frustrating, and fun game. Baer, along with co-inventor Howard Morrison, invented this electronic game in the late 1970s, and launched in 1978.

U.S. Design Patent No. D253,786 was issued on Christmas Day 1979 (Fig. 1 of the patent shown left). While that might seem odd to many, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issues patents every Tuesday, and December 25, 1979 happened to be a Tuesday. Obviously, all the work to allow the patent to be done was complete well in advance. In the U.S. a patent is not officially issued until it is published, which occurred on Christmas Day 1979.

For those not familiar with this iconic game, the device is made up of four colored buttons, which light in a series. The player must repeat the sequence correctly once the lights stop. Each time the player successfully completes the correct sequence the sequence becomes longer, and as the player continues the sequence gets faster and faster. This game can still be purchased today, but the new age Simon Optix seems more virtual reality headset than anything else. In an attempt to keep the game fresh for the next generation you wear the headset and wave your hand in front of the proper color in sequence. Other varieties of this classic game include the Simon Swipe and Simon Air.

 

 

By Gene Quinn & Renee C. Quinn 
December 24, 2017 ipwatchdog.com