Trying to invent a new product works better backwards than forwards.
Not: what could I invent? That produces ideas nobody needed.
But: what problem do I understand that nobody has solved properly? That produces inventions, because you already know why the existing answers fail.
And the second step costs nothing — searching what has already been tried, which eliminates most ideas and shows where the real gap sits.
What you are trying to produce
| Not | But |
|---|---|
| A clever idea | A specific implementation |
| Something nobody thought of | Something non-obvious |
| A concept | A described, enabled invention |
| Inspiration | A solution to a costly problem |
The sequence
| Step | Cost | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Find a problem you understand | Free |
| 2 | Search the prior art | Free |
| 3 | Read the close references | Free |
| 4 | Design around the gap | Time |
| 5 | Test the smallest version | Varies |
| 6 | File before disclosing | ~$60 + drafting |
| 7 | Develop, or license, or sell | — |
Steps one to four cost nothing but time, and they decide whether anything after them is worth doing.
Why outsiders struggle
| Outsider sees | Insider knows |
|---|---|
| An obvious improvement | It was tried in 2009 and failed |
| A simple fix | Why the constraint exists |
| Inefficiency | The regulation behind it |
| A gap | Why nobody fills it |
Domain knowledge tells you which gaps are real. That is the whole advantage.
The one rule
Search before you spend. It is free and it changes what you do next.
Problems, not ideas
| Source | Quality |
|---|---|
| A problem you encounter in your own work | Highest |
| Something you repeatedly work around | High |
| A failure you have seen many times | High |
| A cost everyone in the field accepts | High |
| Brainstorming sessions | Low |
| "Wouldn't it be cool if" | Low |
Domain knowledge is the asset. Someone who services equipment sees failures the designers never encounter, and that gap is where inventions live.
The best problems are ones people have stopped noticing because they have worked around them for years.
Write it down as you go
| Record | Why |
|---|---|
| The idea, dated | Evidence of conception |
| Search results | What you found and when |
| Alternatives considered | Cannot be added to a filing later |
| Test results | Supports non-obviousness |
Ask this about the problem
| Question | Why |
|---|---|
| Does it cost someone real money? | Determines whether anyone will pay |
| How often does it occur? | Frequency drives value |
| What do people do now instead? | The workaround is your competition |
| Why has nobody fixed it? | Sometimes there is a good reason |
| Who has the budget to fix it? | Your buyer |
"Why has nobody fixed it" deserves honesty. Occasionally the answer is that nobody tried. More often it is that the obvious fixes have been tried and failed, and finding out which is the point of the search.
The prior art search
| Tool | Covers | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Google Patents | Full text worldwide, translations | Free |
| USPTO Patent Public Search | US records, classification | Free |
| Espacenet | Foreign families | Free |
| Product listings and marketplaces | A product on sale is prior art | Free |
| Trade publications | Where examiners search least | Often free |
| Academic and conference papers | Frequently missed | Often free |
Search by function in several vocabularies. What you call a flow stabiliser, the prior art calls a damping baffle, and one vocabulary finds one slice.
Search products as well as patents. Something sold but never patented is still prior art, and no patent database contains it.
Use CPC classification browsing to find the neighbourhood keywords miss. See patent an idea free.
Search terms to try
| Approach | Example variation |
|---|---|
| Your term | What you call it |
| The industry term | What suppliers call it |
| The function | What it does |
| The problem | What it prevents |
| The component | What it is made of |
Reading the close references is the valuable part
| What to look for | Why |
|---|---|
| What was tried | Saves you repeating it |
| Why it fell short | Stated in the background section |
| What the claims actually cover | Usually narrower than the title |
| Whether it is in force | Expired art blocks patenting, not selling |
| Who filed it | Who else works on this |
The reformulation usually comes from here. Understanding exactly what the closest reference discloses shows you where the remaining space is.
Most people skip this step and treat the search as pass or fail. It is neither — it is research.
Novel is not enough
| Requirement | Test |
|---|---|
| Novelty (§102) | Not disclosed in a single prior art reference |
| Non-obviousness (§103) | Not a predictable step for a skilled person |
| Eligibility (§101) | Not an abstract idea or natural law |
| Enablement (§112) | Can be built from your description |
§103 rejects more applications than §102. Combining known elements predictably is obvious even where nobody has done it before.
That is the bar most inventions fail, and the prior art search gives you a strong indication of it before you spend anything. See what can be patented.
Worked example: the reformulation
An equipment technician notices filters clogging early on one machine type.
| Step | Action | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Problem from own work | Filters fail at 40% of rated life |
| 2 | Free search, CPC browsing | 60 close documents |
| 3 | Read the 6 closest | All use a fixed-aperture baffle |
| 4 | Why do they fall short? | Efficiency drops outside design velocity |
| 5 | Reformulate | Aperture that varies with flow velocity |
| 6 | Search again on the new concept | 2 close references — both need a fixed reference standard |
| 7 | Reformulate again | Self-referencing, no external standard |
| 8 | Novel over both | Filed |
Step three produced the invention, not step one. The problem was known; the gap was visible only after reading what had been tried.
Step six is the one people skip. Searching again after reformulating is what turned an anticipated idea into a filable one.
Total cost of steps one to seven: nothing.
Adjacent gaps
| Where incumbents focus | Where gaps persist |
|---|---|
| Capability and performance | Servicing and maintenance |
| Headline specifications | Installation and setup |
| The main use case | Edge cases and failure modes |
| New products | Replacement and repair |
| Features | Cost and simplicity |
Large companies optimise for capability because that is what sells at launch. Servicing, repair and simplicity are frequently under-filed relative to how much they cost users.
Those are the areas an individual can realistically compete in, and they are visible to anyone who works with the equipment.
Testing before spending
| Test | Answers |
|---|---|
| Does the physics work? | Calculation or simple rig |
| Smallest working version | Proof of concept |
| Would anyone buy it? | Ask people with the problem |
| At what price? | Determines whether the economics work |
| Is the prior art crowded? | From your search |
Build the smallest thing that tests the riskiest assumption, not a finished product. A rig on a bench answers the question a polished prototype answers no better.
Test the invention against §103
| Ask | Bad sign |
|---|---|
| Is this a combination of known elements? | Common |
| Would the combination be predictable? | Obvious |
| Did others try and fail? | Supports non-obviousness |
| Is there an unexpected result? | Supports it |
| Did the field consider it impossible? | Strong support |
"Others tried and failed" is the most useful evidence you can gather, and reading close prior art is where you find it.
Disclosure destroys rights
| Action | Effect |
|---|---|
| Public disclosure before filing | Forfeits rights in most countries |
| US grace period | 1 year — US only |
| Disclosure under a signed NDA | Protected |
| Trade show, crowdfunding, social post | Public disclosure |
| Offer for sale, even one unit | Public disclosure |
File first, or disclose under NDA. A provisional costs about $60 in micro entity fees and preserves the position for twelve months.
Prototype shops need NDAs signed before the technical conversation, not after the quote. See manufacturing a prototype.
Timing the filing
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Before any disclosure | Non-negotiable for foreign rights |
| After the search | So you know it is worth it |
| After reformulating | So the claims are the right ones |
| Provisional first | Defers cost 12 months |
Patent or secret
| Patent | Trade secret | |
|---|---|---|
| Duration | 20 years from filing | Indefinite while secret |
| Cost | $8,000–$20,000 + fees | Security measures |
| Publishes | At 18 months, permanently | Never |
| Protects against independent invention | Yes | No |
| Best for | Visible products | Undetectable processes |
Filing forecloses secrecy permanently. The application publishes at eighteen months whether or not it grants, and abandoning does not restore it.
A process running inside your own factory is frequently undetectable, which makes trade secret the stronger route.
Combinations count
| Type | Patentable? |
|---|---|
| A wholly new principle | Rare |
| An improvement to something existing | Common |
| A combination of known elements | If non-obvious |
| A known element used in a new field | Sometimes |
| A predictable combination | No — obvious |
Most granted patents are improvements or combinations, not breakthroughs. The bar is non-obviousness, not novelty in the everyday sense.
The test is whether a skilled person would have found it a predictable step, which is why understanding why previous attempts failed matters so much.
Crowded fields
| Effect | Consequence |
|---|---|
| Dense prior art | Narrower claims |
| Well-funded incumbents filing | Hard to get broad coverage |
| More rejections, more rounds | Higher prosecution cost |
| More potential infringers | If you get a claim, it matters |
Look for adjacent gaps rather than the field's main problem. Incumbents optimise for capability; servicing, cost and simplicity are frequently under-filed. See new invention ideas for the future.
Where prototypes help and do not
| Helps with | Does not help with |
|---|---|
| Understanding the invention | Filing — enablement is written |
| Proving it works | Novelty |
| Demand testing | Non-obviousness |
| Investor conversations | Priority date |
| Finding failure modes | Anything legal |
Build to learn, not to file. The specification requires description, not a working model.
What it costs
| Item | Micro entity |
|---|---|
| Free prior art search | $0 |
| Provisional USPTO fee | ~$60 |
| Provisional drafting | $1,500–$4,000 |
| Non-provisional USPTO fee | ~$400 |
| Non-provisional drafting | $5,000–$15,000 |
| Prosecution | $2,400–$8,000 |
| Maintenance fees, lifetime | $2,894 |
Micro entity status cuts USPTO fees by 80% for the whole life. Check eligibility before paying anything. See small entity status.
What usually happens
| Ipiry Patent Survival Curve v1.0 | Rate |
|---|---|
| Survive the 3.5-year fee (2022 cohort) | 85.8% |
| Survive the 7.5-year fee (2018 cohort) | 64.6% |
| Reach full term (2014 cohort) | 41.4% |
| Abandoned before full term | 58.6% |
Computed from 27,273,654 USPTO maintenance fee records covering 8,262,336 US utility patents — see the patent survival curve.
Nearly three in five granted patents are released early by their owners, usually because nobody practises the claims. That is the base rate any invention is competing against, and the free search is what keeps you out of it.
Common mistakes
| Mistake | Cost |
|---|---|
| Skipping the prior art search | Filing on known art |
| Spending on prototypes before searching | Wasted |
| Disclosing before filing | Foreign rights, permanently |
| Treating the search as pass or fail | Missing the reformulation |
| Inventing outside your domain | No insight into why solutions fail |
| Paying an invention promoter | Activity without an asset |
The last one is worth naming. Federal law requires invention promoters to disclose how many customers made a net financial profit — ask for that number before paying anyone. See invention companies.
How to invent something new: the checklist
- Start from a problem you understand, not from a blank page.
- Ask whether the problem costs someone real money.
- Search the prior art before anything else. Free, and it eliminates most ideas.
- Read the close references properly. The reformulation is usually in them.
- Search again after reformulating.
- Test for non-obviousness, not just novelty. It fails more applications.
- Build the smallest thing that tests the riskiest assumption.
- File before disclosing if foreign rights matter at all.
- Consider trade secret for undetectable processes. Filing forecloses it.
- Check micro entity eligibility before paying any USPTO fee.