PPA Embodiments - Descriptions, Numbering, Focus

[EmGee]

Hi Brad, in reviewing your helpful answers on the subject matter of embodiments, I was wondering:

-  Can I simply describe the 'embodiments' in the Descriptions Section of the PPA. Or, do I have to show the alternative embodiments in the Drawings, as well? Or both?

- On a drawing, is it bad practice to number a component interaction location (i.e., Part A is spin-welded to Part B at location Number 56)? Or, should I just stick to numbering important physical components/materials that are present in the drawings and provide more detailed descriptions, instead?

- In my alternative embodiments, should I be 'focused' on how my invention, which is essentially a semi-dramatic shape-change of existing public art, but provides multiple new features and advantages, is better, within the same narrow category (i.e., Metal-Shape A vs. Metal-Shape B), or should I attempt to be as broad as possible but risk the possibility of future rejection because I am claiming the merits of the shape change that extends beyond my, relatively narrow, but influential subcategory of product (i.e., Metal-Shape A vs. Glass-Shape B, where the Glass-embodiment has similar, publicly available relatives and is much more common)? Albeit remote, I could see myself pursuing the less-likely 'glass' version in the future, even though the featured shape-change use in glass does not hold as much benefit to the user, as the metal version, which is what I plan on creating first.
IN SHORT - should alternative embodiments stay relatively focused on the subcategory of intended manufacture or be aggressively broad, including as many materials and other tangential categories as possible?

Any guidance will be much appreciated.
Thanks, Brad!

[Brad]

Hi,

1)  If you think you may end of claiming one of the alternative embodiments then you have to show it in the figures as well as describing it in the text. 

2) I would only label the connection point if that was somehow an important aspect of your invention but in general you would only number each piece and then in the text you can describe how they are attached or connected. 

3)  Can you include both the focused subcategory AND general lists of materials and categories?  I have seen attorneys write 100+ pages of alternative embodiments which in most likely a waste of time and money but those general lists can be used to block others from trying to patent a near identical invention. 

[EmGee]

Thanks so much, Brad! You are incredible!
Quick follow-up question/clarification:

1a  -  How do I know if I should or will 'claim' some of the other embodiments, later, in the non-PPA? (I am thinking that future products, that I want to make, will be size and shape variants of the first main invention/product to create a family of related products).

1b  -  If some listed design variations are only material changes, to protect potential, off-shoot product offerings, in the future, would they still require new embodiment drawings?

4  -  What is the difference between making a list of possible 'variations' (material, number of components, etc.) in the PPA's description section and an 'alternative embodiment'?

Maybe my follow-up questions are somewhat related, sorry if they are... I am sure you can see through my light haze of puzzlement.


Best Regards,
EmGee

[Brad]

Hi,

1a - If you there there is at least a 50% chance you make end up selling one of the design variants then I would make sure you have some claims that include those variants.

1b - Material changes do not have to be shown in the figures.  You can list those in the text.

4.  They are basically the same.  There is no section or heading for "alternative embodiments" or "variations" so different people will list them different ways.  Most people just write them out as new paragraphs for each embodiment or each variant.

[EmGee]

Cool. Thanks Brad. I pulled an all-nighter last night typing out and submitting the PPA.

Unfortunately, in my haze of anxiety of filing early this morning, I think I forgot to mention that other embodiments could be proportionally different, i.e., shorter or taller or skinnier, etc. A stupid omission, on my part.

Would proportional variations still be protected, assuming exact same design/construction methodology?
Is this omission something I would cover in the official Non-PPA, or should I re-submit?

Regards,
EmGee

[Brad]

Normally things like sizes and shapes do not matter for a utility patent application so you should be fine.  You can always correct this when you file the non-provisional.