A physical exercise invention

I sometimes have a cup of coffee with inventors who want to discuss their inventions. Not just about whether or not they are new, but whether there is a market for it, or how to make money from it.

A few weeks ago I sat down with Robert Willox, an actor who wanted to discuss his invention for a Physical training apparatus (since published on the 18 February). The idea is between 20 and 400 vertical columns going up and down in random or synchronised patterns, so that a number of people could be on the apparatus at the same time competing over a random multi-level course and enjoying a complete physical and mental workout. It would cover a large area – perhaps half the size of a tennis court as a minimum.

I liked the idea, but wondered if gyms and the like would want to spend £500,000 a time for an apparatus, especially in this recession. It would also take up a lot of space and getting the most effective use of space is vital. And what if a single column malfunctioned – the entire apparatus would be out of action.

Robert had obviously put a lot of effort into writing the patent application, which is well written, but he has no engineering background. He has not filed for patents outside the UK. The next stage is the UK Intellectual Property Office asking if he wants a substantive examination, where they counter with arguments about why it should not be granted.

This stage costs only £130 in the office’s fees, but the real cost is if a patent attorney is retained to counter the arguments. An obvious statement would be that it was not new. Many published patent applications (but not those from the USA) have a search report at the back listing relevant “prior art”, with X and Y markings being the most important, as they suggest that the claims named have been anticipated or are obvious improvements, respectively.

In this case the most relevant citation appears to be a Japanese document, Game device by Hitachi Plant, published in 1990 which sounds, and looks from its main drawing, rather similar, though it does involve the columns being stable when stepped on.

Comments

[George Brock-Nannestad]

The essence of the invention as you describe it in your blog is the dynamic feature, which is described in para [029], but clearer by you: "The idea is between 20 and 400 vertical columns going up and down in random or synchronised patterns, so that a number of people could be on the apparatus at the same time competing over a random multi-level course...." Why is not at least one claim directed to that feature? Why are most of the claims directed to features that the skilled person would choose according to local needs and which do not contribute to inventive step? I am sorry, but I do not find the application to be well written. And a preparatory search would have brought out the Hitachi reference, permitting a concentration on the essentials.

You may well not want to publish this, not to publicly discourage anyone, and that is o.k. with me.

Kind regards,

George Brock-Nannestad