Designs of the Year 2015

Each year London's Design Museum hosts the Designs of the Year exhibition. The 2015 exhibition opened last March but I've only just got around to seeing it (it closes 3 April 2016).

As usual there was an interesting and stimulating mixture of built objects or design concepts from around the world. A few criticisms: I didn't notice any mention of cost, whether to the manufacturer of the consumer. Some excellent ideas have failed because the cost can't fall to the price that consumers are willing (or able) to pay. It often isn't clear if a design is merely a concept or a proven, and available, product. Design is by manufacturing and selling as well as looks and function. And it would be good if it was easy to find more information, such as (dare I say it ?) patent specifications.

There is for example an inflatable airbag jacket by Italian company Dainese, as illustrated here: the D-Air® Street.

There are a number of World patent applications by Dainese concerning inflatable inventions. The idea is that sensors on the fork of a motorcycle anticipate a collision, They send a wireless signal to activators in the cells of the jacket, which inflate in just 45 milliseconds. The jacket is powered by a battery which can be charged using a USB connector. There is a webpage by Dainese about the product, which is already available.

The concept of airbags for motorcycle users is an intriguing one, and I have posted before on the subject, with the Hovding airbag helmet.

Another invention is a new kind of coffee maker, as illustrated below.

This is Miito, by Danish designers Nils Chudy and Jasmina Grase. Most people grossly overfill kettles and hence boil far more water than they actually use in the hot drink. Even if they keep to the recommended filling line, they are making enough hot water for two cups and not just one. This device has an induction base which uses electromagnetism to heat the base of the rod while it is inside the cup and hence the liquid contents. It powers down when the water boils, or the rod is removed. I like the cool simplicity of the idea. Of course, it won't work if you are making cups for more than one person. You can reserve one for 25 Euros.

The Google autonomous car was also there. I must admit to doubts about this concept, if only because if there is a crash, who is liable, as no one is actually driving the car ?

The exhibition encourages people to vote for their favourite design, with totals given on a board. When I visited the most popular was The Ocean Cleanup, by three Dutch designers. Huge booms attached to the seabed use ocean currents to sweep pieces of plastic and other debris to a containment area 40 km long, shaped like a giant V, where the material is compressed and later removed. While the idea of dealing with this growing problem is laudable, I wonder at the cost if the seabed is deep below the surface, and about hazards to shipping. Still, I hope it works. There is a lot of information about this solution at The Ocean Cleanup website, which says that a trial in the North Sea will take place in 2016.

If you are near London, I strongly encourage visiting the exhibition and letting a flow of ideas pour over you.

Teaching intellectual property at school

Recently I ran a class teaching intellectual property to high school students at the American School in London.

I've done this several times now at the same school for their Technology and culture elective course, which is taught by Mariam Mathew. I hadn't been in a school since 1972, and it did feel strange at first !

For the first time I was the teacher, with a class plan covering what I wanted the twelve students to learn. I was wielding the chalk, only there wasn't a piece of chalk in sight. Apple® equipment was everywhere, including in front of them (the school uses that platform exclusively), and the students were clustered around a long table rather than in the rows of desks I was used to. The atmosphere was relaxed and talkative rather than formal.

There was also a readiness to have informal learning in groups, where conclusions were given by a spokesperson. I don't remember that ever happening at the schools I atteneded, yet these are perfectly normal in everyday life, especially work. Here's a photo of the class.

The aim of the course is to bring out the interaction between technology such as software and people -- it is easy to take it all for granted. When I was at school computers were never mentioned, while now schools would be considered failures if they were not tightly integrated into everything.

My 75 minute class explained the basics of intellectual property -- patents for function, designs for looks, trade marks for branding products or services, and copyright for authorship -- and I passed around a coffee cup sleeve and lid to show how such mundane objects contained these elements. One had the patent number on it of Beverage container holder, as illustrated below -- the classic sleeve with a green logo which wraps round Starbuck® coffee cups. It covers the machinery for making the sleeves.

I also mentioned software a lot. The two most popular posts on my blog are about Snapchat® and WhatsApp, which are patented apps. I've never used them, but when I asked if anyone used them nearly every hand shot up. Like it or not, software is already part of young people's lives even if they don't stop to think about how they are thought of, made available and protected as concepts. The mind boogles at what might be happening in thirty years' time.

I set the class the task of identifying as many features in Apple as they could think of and presenting their results, and finished by briefly demonstrating how to use Espacenet. I then let them loose to have a go on the database themselves.I think they enjoyed that most of all ! It set their imaginations free to look for anything that interested them, although a few were dazed at the prospect and couldn;t think of anything until I prompted them.

Of course, a 75 minute class could only be a taster of what a complex subject like this is about. I found the experience stimulating and fun, and would be happy to run similar classes at schools or colleges in the London area.

The "patent" for Oreo® cookies

We bought a packet of Oreo® cookies today at the local supermarket, and it made me wonder about the history of the product, a kind of "sandwich cookie."

I had a look on Google (for Oreo + cookies + either history or patented) and found several sites which mentioned the 6 March 1912 as the date of origin, and some which said that it was patented on "March 6, 1912, U.S. Patent No. 0093009." For example, the New York Daily News obituary of Sam Porcello.

The TimeToast timeline for Oreo® cookies also attributes that date to the patenting of the cookie.

According to the Wikipedia article on Oreo cookies,Sam Porcello held five patents relating to the cookie. A 2012 obituary for him in Time magazine was cited for this.

Well, I was surprised. There are a few patents for food products -- Toblerone® and Tabasco® sauce come to mind, as respectively Swiss patent 46708, filed for in 1909 and US patent 107701, filed in 1870. Yet I did wonder what was novel, even then, for the concept of two sweet layers with a creamy layer between them.

As I collect the patent numbers for the first patent for well-known products or processes I began some research. "Patented", in theory, meant the date the rights were granted, and would be the same day as publication.

The 6 March 1912 was a Tuesday, and American patents were at the time only published or "issued" on Wednesdays. So the date couldn't be the issue date.

Could it be the date a patent was applied for ? No apparent patent fitted -- and Sam or Samuel Porcello did indeed have five American patents between 1976 and 1989, mainly for Nabisco, for e.g. filler cream containing soybean oil, but this was obviously far too late for my purposes.

What about the number 0093009 ? It was wrong as a published utility patent number or as a design patent number as the dates would have been published in 1869 or 1934 respectively.

What about it being a filing number ? I wondered if it was a trade mark filing number. I went to my old standby, the free TMQuest database by Minesoft and asked for Oreo as an exact mark and the year 1912. I did not specify filing, registration or publication.

I got the one result, and said to myself "Bingo." US trade mark Registration number 0093009 was applied for on the 14 March 1912 and was registered on the 12 August 1913. The number matched perfectly if not the date.

I can't account for the 6 March 1912 -- perhaps that was the day the name Oreo was chosen to be a trade mark -- but this little saga does show how careful one has to be in carrying out research. Far from being patented (for the cookie itself or how to make it), the product was simply, and quite rightly, given a brand name.

I suspect that people have been innocently repeating the wording without checking further.

Inventions that didn't change the world: book review

Inventions that didn't change the world, by Julie Halls, has just been published by Thames & Hudson in association with Britain's National Archives.

It explains the story, with 240 colour illustrations, of Britain's Useful Designs, which were available from 1843 to the early 1880s, with over 6000 registrations. At a cost of £10 it effectively provided, for some, an alternative to the very expensive and cumbersome patent system, although in theory it was for a new shape or configuration rather than for a new concept. Protection though was limited to 3 years unlike patents' 14 years. Besides the Useful Designs, there were the much more numerous Ornamental Designs.

There is a preliminary chapter, explaining the context, but the large bulk of the book consists of the illustrations in seven themed sections. They have clearly been picked for their visual impact, and some are distinctly odd -- anti-garotting devices, fan riding whips, and so on, besides the expected cornucopia of Victorian life. It is fascinating to leaf through the pages, where very often a detailed handwritten explanation of how the design worked (by the designer) appears below the illustration. Anyone interested in design generally, or social history, will enjoy the book.

There is a very detailed index, and a list of the displayed designs with its reference at the National Archives and the name and description of the designer (address and sometimes an occupation).

I would have liked to have seen some investigation into the actual designers by using census and other data, and regret the absence of any mention (as far as I can tell) to women as designers. My own research suggests that there were at least 55 women who took out these designs, with 17 of those for clothing, hats or shoes. The remainder covered quite a variety, including carriages.

I would also have liked to have seen a mention of Alexis Soyer, a celebrated chef in his day, who came up with six designs, as listed here. That came from the Discovery catalogue where these Useful Designs can be searched by entering BT45 as the "reference" and then entering words (such as title words, surname, address, occupation) in the boxes above. Images, though, are not available. Two Crimean stoves and one Crimean cloak can be found, for example.

These are minor quibbles, and I recommend the book as an excellent browse. There are illustrations, and a short video, at a Thames & Hudson page, and more images at the Guardian's book review.

Julie Halls will be giving a talk at 2 pm on the 28 October about her book at the National Archives.

The Spanish-American War in US design patents

American design patents can be a valuable source of images for studying social history, but are little used. Here is an example: reactions to the Spanish-American War. They may not be typical, of course, as the number is small. Nor does the issuing of a design patent mean that the item was actually manufactured.

There is no doubt that there are numerous souvenir, commemorative or patriotic pins, badges, etc. in the American design patents, and how to find them is explained at the end of this post. The British registered designs, the same sort of right for the look of a design, are not online for historical material, and do not cover such subjects. They also lack explanatory text which could be searched in this way.

The background to the Spanish-American War is that Cuba, a Spanish colony, was fighting a war for independence from Spain. The American battleship Maine was moored in Havana harbour when, on the 15 February 1898, she blew up with the tragic loss of 266 sailors. Sabotage, screamed many American newspapers (although the evidence is inconclusive), which whipped up patriotic enthusiasm which led to war being declared (by the Spanish) in April 1898. The fighting was mainly in Cuba and the Philippines, and ended swiftly, in August 1898.

What follows is a list of the design patents that I have identified as being relevant, in order of being filed at the US Patent Office. Some of the images are attractive; others are dull.

In fact before the war those wishing to express pro-Cuban sympathies were assisted by Henry Caldwell of Hartwell, OH with his "Badge", D27621, filed 30 January 1897. It shows the Cuban colours and is meant to "indicate sympathy with the cause of Cuba", says the patent.

On the 2 April 1898 Willis Hart of Unionville, CT filed for D28629, "Spoon". It shows the Maine and its commander, Captain Charles Sigsbee.

On the 25 April 1898 Julius Becker of New York City filed for D28787, "Pipe", in the appearance of the Maine.

On the 26 May 1898 Charles Bailey of Cromwell, CT filed for D29049, "Toy bank". Again in the guise of the Maine. Bailey had numerous Design Patents to his name.

On the 16 June 1898 William Smith of Philadelphia, PA filed for "Woven fabric", again showing the Maine.

On the 18 June 1898 Amos Standing of St Louis, MO filed for "Game device". I strongly suspect that this is for a game based on the Battle of Manila Bay on the 1 May 1898, when Commodore Dewey's ships defeated the Spanish.

On the 28 August 1898 John Croskey of Dunkirk, IN filed for D29364, "Pitcher". The text explains that it commemorates the Battle of Manila, artillery, the flags of Cuba and the USA, and "the United States Admiral".

On the 28 September 1898 Frank Zecher of Lancaster, PA filed for D29686, "Toy bank", again as the Maine.

On the 29 September 1898 Conrad Stein of Bridgeport, CT filed for D29649, "Game board". The text says that the Spanish and American flags are above the forts.

On the 30 September 1898 William Brown of New York City filed for D29661, "Spoon". The text explains that it commemorates Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders volunteers, who fought in Cuba.

On the 6 October 1898 Charles Bailey of Cromwell, CT filed for D29687, "Toy money bank" -- almost inevitably, as the Maine. On the 26 May he had already filed for an earlier version.

On the 27 October 1898 Ole Prestholdt of Clarkfield, MN filed for D29812, "Medal or similar article". The text explains that Uncle Sam, while feeding chickens, is shooting a hawk that represents Spain while in the background is yes, the Maine. On the other side are images of notable Americans such as President McKinley.

On the 21 January 1899 Josephine Altshuler of New Whatcom, WA filed for D30210, "Game board". The big map is Cuba, the small map Manila Bay.

On the 11 April 1899 Morrison Swan of Manilla, IA filed for D30714, "Breastpin". It shows Dewey.

There is then quite a gap until the 8 July 1899, when Charles Kaiser of Rockport, IN filed for D31313, "chair seat and back". It shows President McKinley and the wrecked Maine. I wonder if the inventor considered if it was polite to sit on an image of the wrecked ship.

On the 11 July 1899 August Grametbaur of New York City filed for D31434, "Plate". Dewey is in the middle, surrounded by his leading naval officers.

On the 30 August 1899 Warren Greveling of New York City filed for D32001, "Lamp body". It shows Dewey.

Finally, on the 8 March 1900 Anson Bacon of Halliwell, ME filed for D32728, "Pencil". It shows Dewey.

The slogan "Remember the Maine" only turned up once -- as an example of what could be used in setting up type, in "Printing form". Filed on the 7 July 1898, it was published as utility patent 626649.

I found the designs on Google Patents Advanced by specifying a time period and designs and then searching the accompanying explanatory text for each design by keywords such as Dewey, Cuba, etc. The database seems to contain a full set of design numbers for showing PNG images of the drawing pages, but as the remainder is scanned content it is likely that some material has been missed. Of course, if no keywords were mentioned then relevant Design Patents won't turn up. There is a classification scheme, but this would simply define badges, pins, flags and so on.

A specific design can be found on that database by asking for e.g, D27621.

Designs of the Year 2014: my visit

I have now visited the Design Museum's exhibition Designs of the Year 2014 and found it very absorbing. It is on until the 25 August.

There are 76 exhibits in seven areas: architecture., digital, fashion., furniture, graphics, product and transport. I found the mixture very stimulating. Here are a couple of photos from it.

The official website for Designs of the Year 2014 (as opposed to the exhibition) lists the 76 and shows the numbers of votes for each. I didn't vote as I couldn't decide between such different products and solutions in so many different areas.

I seem to find the worlds of wheelchairs, bicycles and highly efficient cars very interesting, as my other photos are in those areas.

Below is the Chair 4 Life by the Renfrew Group.

Below is the IFmove bicycle by Pacific Cycles, which claims to be more than just a folding bicycle.

And there is the ME.WE concept car by Toyota, designed to be a light electric car for use in urban areas. I await with great anticipation the arrival in large numbers of electric cars -- they will be quiet for a start, and not emit lots of poisonous fumes. Liberate the city !

I also saw at the same venue the exhibition Hello, my name is Paul Smith. I was vaguely aware that Smith was a fashion designer but knew nothing more. It seems he is also involved in design work generally, and I loved his energetic curiosity -- he takes a camera and notebook everywhere, and absorbs ideas and influences like a sponge. I admit to being surprised by my own enthusiasm.

Each shop is individually designed and they are listed on the Paul Smith company website, and I will start visiting the 11 London shops. Below are a couple of photos I took at the exhibition.

i-hut®: the seriously cool caravan

i-hut® is the trade mark of what the company calls a "seriously cool caravan". It is made of wood which to me gives a Scandinavian look, and is designed so that it can function as a second home. 

UK law allows certain designs to be classed as temporary so that they can be sited in, for example, your garden without the need to ask for planning permission. Although really a structure, the i-hut® has wheels and a towbar so it can go anywhere with planning permission for a caravan. The website gives lots of details including photographs. 

The brochure I have in my hand, most of which is reproduced on the website, states that

The i-hut name and logo is a registered Trade Mark and the i-hut design is registered at the Patents Office. If you try to pinch it, we'll set the dogs on you !

It is commendable that a company takes so much interest in its intellectual property. Maybe the dogs are a bit much. It is in fact the Patent Office, not the Patents Office, and I would have preferred to have seen the familiar ® logo attached to each use of the trade mark, which is indeed registered for the UK for caravans and other classes, in the brochure and the website. I also prefer to see specific design or patent numbers listed. 

I found two relevant UK registered designs for the distinctive look. Below is the drawing page sent in for UK Design 4021158.

Below is the drawing page sent in for UK Design 4021159. 

They were by Charteroak Estates, who also registered the trade mark. 

There are two models, with each available as a road legal or non road legal version. Full use is made of space above head level, in the apex of the roof, for storage or sleeping. The longer version is 36 feet long and the shorter 18 feet. The costs run from just under £30,000 to £45,000 plus optional extras. 

The need for space is of course paramount in cramped spaces such as caravans or small yachts. This is why the idea of a room that slides out when the caravan is at rest has become popular. An example, given below, is taken from US2006117673. 

Here is a list of some US patent specifications for slide-out provision in "recreational vehicles". 

The British registered design database: a critique

Registered designs (called design patents in the USA) can be a significant part of an innovator's arsenal if the looks, rather than the function, of an article is important. This post is an assessment of the free UK official online registered designs database.

It is not explained how far back the database goes, but there is certainly material as far back as 1984, and maximum protection is 25 years. Hence all currently protected designs ought to be on it. In 2012, 5,144 designs were registered, of which 3,797 were of UK origin. The numbers were about double that in 2002, when half were of foreign origin, but the EU designs at OHIM has had a big impact since then, as it offers an attractive alternative to using a national office.

Searches can be carried out by design number, by proprietor name; by classification; or by a combination of the last two.

Searching by number is easy (if you know it), as each seven digit number is unique (and none in the database have fewer digits). At present designs are in a 4 million range.

The results are 32 images appearing in a tile like pattern which is very useful for checking for similar images. This can be altered so that display is of up to 132 images. The US Patent Office's examiners uses this as a convenient way to scan for prior art. The UK gave up checking for novelty some years ago.

More recent registrations are usually photographs, often coloured, but earlier designs are often line drawings and are difficult to see on the screen. The design number and the first letters of the proprietor are also given. Here are examples.

Clicking on the image leads through to the results. See for example UK Design 3019248. I tried copying the data and sticking it into this post, but that was a failure.

The format is awkward to use, to put it mildly. Clicking on boxes opens data or images. It needs a complete overhaul to meet modern expectations, such as easy printing or downloading. Anyone needing to read or print off the full data should access the "View full Bibliography" page at top right. Fees are due every 5 years to keep the design in force, and data on payments plus address details are given. That format can indeed be printed, buit it lacks any image.

For images, "Best View" at top left is the representative image selected for the results list. The "Formal Rep" pages are the pages showing the design as sent in. Anyone wanting to print them has to save each page and print them individually, and had better keep good records, as none of the pages state that they are British registered designs. The number is stamped or written on the Formal Rep pages, admittedly, but a novice could easily think that that was a patent number as that's it: a number, nothing else. I'd like to see at least e.g. "UK registered design xxxxxxx" stamped on each page, but preferably the presence of a formal front page containing data and a main image, or even everything incorporated in one document as a PDF, such as US Design 696744.

Subject searching is not possible by the title of the design (why not ?) but only by clicking open and selecting classes in an enhanced version of the Locarno classification. The enhancements is the best part of the database. Locarno provides classes such as 14/02 (data processing equipment and peripherals) or 21/01 (games and toys). These are big classes, so the ability to add a third level is very useful. Hence 14/02 is subdivided into 15 classes, such as 14/02/02, input devices. Hence 21/01 is subdivided into about 100 classes, such as 21/01/04B, flat game boards for football and cricket.

However, many of these third level classes are described in such detail that the full title runs off the screen (21/01 has many examples). They are unusable since what they represent cannot be identified.

Turning to searching by name, individuals can only be searched by the surname. Knowing the first name is no use at all. You can combine a name search with a class search, but only down to e.g. 25/1 or 25/2 level, not just 25 level. Often you only need the approximate class area to reduce the results found.

In conclusion, the database is valuable but I would like to see some substantial changes to make it even better. These are:

(1) Providing "UK registered design xxxxxx" data stamped on the drawings.
(2) Changing the format of the individual results to ease printing and downloading.
(3) Enabling searching by title
(4) Enabling the full titles of all third level classes to be viewed
(5) Enabling combined proprietor and class searches to be down to e.g. Class 22 and not 22/01 level

The Hivehaus® modular house

The Hivehaus® is a modular housing concept where hexagonal cells are built by using identically-sized panels, with additional cells being added as required or wanted. Like a honeycomb, hence the hive. "Haus" is I suppose a reference to Passivhaus, the highly ecological housing standard.

Each cell is the same size, and has a skylight (and so, even if surrounded by other cells, has natural lighting). The walls can vary, so some can contain windows or doors. Each cell is 100 square feet in size. Each wall panel is put together out of four connecting equilateral triangles.

Barry Jackson, who lives near Wigan, England, thought it up. He applied for the UK trade mark on 2 October 2012 but I have not found a patent application in his name or that of his company, ipothosis ltd., who have an interesting website. The company was formed a week later, on 10 October 2012. Below is what it looks like, complete in this case with decking.

There are at least four UK registered designs, such as this one:

These are hard to find (I intend to post soon on the limits placed on the searcher by the official UK designs database, where I was forced to search just for Jackson as a proprietor, though I knew his first name). I don't regard designs as a very effective tool in his case as it is the concept rather than the exact look that is important.

I first came across Hivehaus® in George Clarke's Amazing spaces TV programme. I love architecture, and I love sustainable, low-cost solutions. Although the company website does not seem to mention costs or prices (and the product won't be launched until 2014), it is clearly meant to be an economical and flexible way to self-assemble a well-insulated home. The TV episode suggested £10,000 per cell. Flexible jacks mean that it can be built on an uneven surface. Presumably it saves money (and ensures each cell has natural lighting) not to build above a ground floor level, though that does limit the concept to areas where there is some space to expand (unless you surrender the ability to do so in the future). You are also limited to rooms of the same size and configuration (and colours, though perhaps other colours than black and white will be offered). I'd like one with an interior courtyard. That's one of the points -- you can to a degree design it to your own needs and wishes.

Is the idea so radically new ? There is a patent classification for hexagonal-shaped housing construction, indexing patent specifications such as the Pre-cast polygonal shelter by Lane Lythgoe of Heber, Utah as illustrated below. That's the point: Jackson's is more flexible in putting the cells together, and can easily be added to, not pre-cast.

At present there are 492 patent specifications listed for that class, many in German. More manageable are the 143 published in the USA or in the UK.

Below is a fun time-lapse video showing the building of a Hivehaus® cell.

The patents of Jonathan Ives for Apple

London's Evening Standard had tonight an interesting article about "Jonty" Ives of Apple, the London-born designer who together with Steve Jobs created the distinctive look of the company's products: How Jonty Ive saved Apple from bankruptcy.

I found the five ways listed in detail by which Ive made Apple's products iconic particularly interesting (they include using white, plastic and touch screens), but wonder if the statement that he was "named in more than 600 patents" is quite right. The article is written for a British audience and should, I suggest, recognise local practice.

The USA recognises several variants of patents.

The main one is the utility patent (which is what Europeans would call simply a patent), and which is basically for functional products or methods of making them, and which is normally published first as an application and then later as a granted patent.

Next in popularity is the design patent, which is for a look deliberately given to things. In the UK they are called registered designs and are never referred to as patents.

These rights can be searched for on the free Espacenet database. Entering in the "publication number" field the following codes restricts the hits found to that variety:

USA = utility patent applications (published 18 months after applied for); numbered as e.g. 2013256346 with the publication year as the first four digits
USB = utility patent grants (published after application stage when examiners at the US Patent Office have approved it); numbered as e.g. 8000000 in a series that began in 1836
USS = design patent grants; numbered as e.g. D600000

If each of those codes is entered, plus Apple as the applicant and Jonathan Ive (his real name) in the inventor field, the number for each variety is:

USS = 619, listed as Jonathan Ive's US design patents
USA = 31, listed as Jonathan Ive's US patent applications
USB = 26, listed as Jonathan Ive's US patent grants

While Ive is certainly prolific, this shows that his main influence is as a designer and not as an inventor. The second and third groups largely overlap, as most of the grant entries list corresponding applications. Incidentally, Apple is famed for giving numerous people credit for utility patents -- ten names is normal. Steve Jobs, as Steven Jobs, appears 545 times if a search is done for him on Espacenet. Here are the 36 granted patents by him; here are the 291 US Design patents by Jobs, where he (like Ives) really came into his own.

So what sort of work has Ive been involved with ? The inventions are mostly for the appearance of things and, to be frank, the drawings do not look that exciting. However, I did like Armband for holding an electronic device, illustrated below.

The much more numerous designs show that no detail is too small. If you like the sleek, minimal look (including the famous rounded corners) that Apple likes so much then you like Ive's design work. For example

and

and

At the end of the newspaper article is given the fact that Jony Ive by Leander Kahney is being published on Thursday by Portfolio Penguin.