5 astonishing facts every Designer must include in innovation process to avoid Patent Rejection
How can fashion designers
patent there designs?
![]() |
| 3D Printed Shoes Design Patented by Nike |
Fashion designers must avoid
“obvious” design patentability planning. A patent examiner can reject your
application if the design is obvious. What is “obvious”? 3D printing components
are used in Aviation & Automotive Industry to make sample prototype for
checking aero dynamics, fitment, dimension and other non-destructive testing; now
if a fashion designer is making a shoes using same 3D printing technology, then
it will be considered “Obvious”. There are many patents by Fashion Designers related
to 3D printed accessories and costumes, but all they discuss about difference
from conventional 3D printing, improvement in user experience, modification in raw
material chemical composition and other innovation the fashion designer did for
Patentability.
![]() |
| Difference in Inventive Steps and Creative Difficulty define type of Patent which can be granted |
There are certain parameters
which are considered to reject or accept a patentability application, as
explained below: -
1.
If the invention a product of combining prior
art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, then the
invention is obvious.
2.
If the invention is created through a
substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results,
then the invention is obvious.
3.
If the invention is achieved by using a known
technique to improve a similar device in the same way, then the invention is
obvious.
4.
If the invention is created by applying a
known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results, then
the invention is obvious.
5.
If the invention is achieved from choosing a
finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable
expectation to succeed, then the invention is obvious.
6.
If known work in one field of endeavour
prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the
variations are predictable to one of skill in the art, then the invention is
obvious.
![]() |
| Fashion Designers must consider above 3 factors before considering Patentability |
What
fashion Designers can do to avoid this rejection? Because if the invention
would be obvious to anyone involved in the same field as the inventor, then there
can be no “statutory monopoly” granted in the form of a patent.
·
The scope and content of the prior art are to
be determined – Fashion Designers must do a technical comparison and highlight currently
available or older patents.
·
Differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained – Fashion Designer must highlight “How
proposed design is different for existing or older patents considering terms
and condition of “Obvious” design”.
·
The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
art is to be resolved - It is possible that someone skilled in the relevant
field of technology and familiar with its subject matter could have invented it
with comparative ease had he tried; such an “invention” would be novel but
obvious to that person. Consider different country, different industry and
different usability for the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. One
example is carbon fibre costumes designed by Fashion Designers. Actually Carbon
Fibre was already invented by someone else and already in use in Medical,
Aviation and Manufacturing Industry.
![]() |
| Now Smart Clothing Companies are using same prior art which is used for Space Suit Design to regulate temperature, humidity and sensors for Heart Beat, Blood Pressure and other conditions |




Comments
Post a Comment