Patent No. 4,344,424: Anti-Eating Face Mask was awarded to Lucy L. Barmby of Sacramento, CA in 1980. What surprises me is not that this apparatus was granted a patent but rather than even 34 years ago self-restraint in terms of food was a problematic issue. "An anti-eating face mask which includes a cup-shapes member conforming to the shape of the mouth and chin area of the user, together with a hoop member and straps detachably engageable with a user's head for mounting the cup-shaped member in overlying relationship with the user's mouth and chin area under the nose thereby preventing the ingestion of food by the user."
If you squinted really hard and took a couple grains of salt, I'm sure you can see that this apparatus is actually much needed and useful to all those who need a physical restraint from "introducing substances into the mouth" which could include objects greater than food. In the matters of non-obviousness, I would consider myself a person of ordinary skill well cultured with putting objects into my mouth (for about 20+ years now) and would definitely not have thought of such a intricate device to disable one from introducing objects into the mouth. As for novelty, no prior art seems to exist with such an innovative apparatus in any country or publication. Thus this patent is valid enough to be granted as a patent.
Weight Loss companies may want to look to gain a licensing agreement perhaps..
This is basically a muzzle. They are just calling it something different and saying it is used for something different to get a patent on it.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, how could a device like this be issued a patent in the first place? It appalls me that even though this apparatus qualifies for the three basic tenants of a patentable device, it was issued a legitimate legal protection.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all those above, this is something that I can't believe the USPTO actually gave clearance as a patent. Also, though this would work for most situations, couldn't a company just steal this idea by making the design a bit different and not infringe on the claim?
ReplyDeleteThis is silly indeed. But I don't think anyone would use this idea to produce something similar. That's what I would think. Company could design a bit different, but they would be infringing based on design patent infringement.
DeleteI guess USPTO only proved this patent because it is something that no one else has ever filed it before. What surprises me is that USPTO maybe never thought about the safety issue of this patent. I don't even think the weight loss company would look into this patent.
ReplyDeleteIf the person truly wants to eat, couldn't they remove the face mask? I believe this device is silly and shouldn't have been granted as a patent due to Cory's observation that it is essential a muzzle with a different name. On another note, prior to reading the actual post I thought an alligator was trying to kiss the man rather than the man trying to consume a sandwich.
ReplyDeleteI thought this too. If a person wants to eat, he or she can just take the mask off. It's same as normal mask, I would think. It's actually more work, which would cost money to get this mask. I wonder if they made any money out of this idea. I guess if they truly want to use this idea, they can put a lock on it, and give the key to someone else, other than the user.
DeleteCool.
ReplyDeleteThis patent is very silly in that there are many other alternatives to this. For instance, we can just wear a mask. Another way would be is to just not eat mentally. I feel this is silly too because you can just remove a mask too. Without a real passion to not eat, this would be useless. I feel that it was granted because nobody really thought of this idea before, that meaning it wasn't a pretty good idea before.
ReplyDelete