July 7, 2025

On July 7, 1953, the Wayfarer sunglass design was patent by Raymond F. E. Stegman, then working for Bausch & Lomb, the parent company of the popular glasses brand, Ray-Ban.

The style quickly grew in popularity throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, favored by by music and film icons such as Buddy Holly, Roy Orbison and James Dean., especially after James Dean wore a pair in 1955’s Rebel Without a Cause. The design’s popularity has waxed and waned over the years. In 1999, Bausch & Lomb sold Ray-Ban to Luxottica Group S.p.A. of Italy for $640 million. Wayfarers have been updated, but the basic shape remains.

July 6, 2025

On July 6, 1869, U.S. Patent No. 92379, issued to Charles Singer on a Rocking Chair:

This was no ordinary rocking chair, the rocking motion operates a bellows that blows air on the user — a pretty good idea for a hot July day

July 5, 2025

On July 5, 1910, U.S. Patent No. 963677 issued to Edward H Amet on a Hair Drying Fan.

As the patent explains, the double handles are jointed to allow the user to dry hair on the sides and back of the head.

Amet was born in Philadelphia in 1860. His first patent, age seventeen, was for an improved telephone. In 1884 Amet settled in Waukegan, Illinois, and became a consulting engineer, obtaining patents for coin-operated weighing machines. He designed a clockwork motor for Edison’s phonograph and developed his own phonograph. He also developed a motion picture projector, and other film making equipment, and even produced some films.
Amet eventually settled in California, and by 1911 had filed the first of a series of patents for a synchronised sound camera and projector (US Patent No. 1,065,576). He also worked in 3-D projection, gliders, and a guided torpedo. Edward Amet died 16 August 1948 in Redondo Beach, California.

His hair dryer was probably not his most technical invention, but it is today’s Patent of the Day.

July 4, 2025

On July 4, 1944, Lloyd V. Lamb received U.S. Patent No. D138207 on a Patriotic Photograph Mounting Card:

At the height of World War II, with 16,112,566 Americans in service, and eventually 407,316 killed and 671,278 wounded, a patent on a patriotic picture frame issuing on July 4 was auspicious timing.

July 2, 2025

On July 2, 1929, U.S. Patent No. 1,719,460 issued to Raymond Armbrecht on a Toy:

The toy allows the user to “shoot” a plane from the Statue of Liberty to the Eifel Tower, no doubt inspired by Charles Lindbergh’s flight two years earlier.

July 3, 2025

On July 3, 1984, U.S. Patent No. 4,457,509, issued to Jean St-Germain on a Levitationarium for Air Flotation of Humans

As the patent explains, “[t]his invention relates to an installation to levitate human beings by an upward flow of air, and in particular, to a levitationarium in which air flotation of humans is produced, either for the sole fun and enjoyment of users and spectators or for training, such as to practice free fall by parachutists.”

July 1, 2025

On July 1, 1980, U.S. Patent No. 4,210,141 issued to Raymond Brockman and William Nadeau on Hiccough Treatment Appliance:

The appliance for treating hiccoughs includes a container portion adapted to hold a quantity of liquid, a dispensing portion for dispensing the liquid, and a tongue-depressor portion adjacent the dispensing portion for projecting into the mouth of a person drinking liquid from the appliance to depress the person’s tongue while the liquid is being swallowed.

Twenty-one years later, on October 16, 2021, Italian Giancarlo Ciolfi received U.S. Patent No. 6,302,112 on a Device for Inducing a Prompt Recovery from Hiccoughs:

For most hiccoughs are a minor annoyance, but for some they can be much more than that. Take for instance Charles Osborne, who since an accident on June 13, 1922, hiccoughed nonstop for 68 years until they suddenly stopped in 1990 – a year before his death in May 1991.

Only about 76 US patents mention hiccoughs, while 2138 US patents mention hiccups, and 33 US mention both spellings.

June 30, 2025

On June 30, 1838, U.S. Patent No. 821 was granted to the brothers Philos Blake, Eli W. Blake, and John A. Blake, of New Haven, Connecticut, on a furniture caster.

The inventors were nephews of Eli Whitney, with Eli W. being his namesake. The brothers established a hardware casting and furnace works in 1835 in the Westville section of New Haven. The company manufactured door locks, latches, hinges, and other items of domestic hardware — many of which they eventually patented. The brothers no doubt gained valuable engineering skills at the Whitney Armory, their uncle’s arms factory, which they continued to run for 10 years after Whitney’s death.

A little more than seven year later, the brothers had their patent reissued:

June 29, 2025

On June 29, 1954, R. Buckminster Fuller received U.S. Patent No. 2682235 on a Building Construction (his geodesic dome).

While Fuller popularized the geodesic dome, he is mistakenly credited with its invention. That honor goes to Walther Bauersfeld, who built the first geodesic dome, and received a German patent on June 19, 1925. Fuller lived in a geodesic dome in Carbondale, Illinois, where he was on the faculty of Southern Illinois University. His most famous dome is the one that served as the American pavilion at the 1967 World’s Fair.

Does the Patent Office Care About Inventors?

On February 20, 2025, Diamond Art Club (“DAC”) sued the USPTO seeking to overturn sanctions imposed by the USPTO because W&K IP LLC, the firm that filed DAC’s application, improperly used the name of a licensed practitioner. Although the USPTO apparently recognized that DAC and practitioner were unaware of W&K’s improper conduct, the USPTO issued the following sanctions:

  • Terminating the proceedings in the application.
  • Precluding submission of any petition to revive the application or any petition to withdraw a holding of abandonment.
  • Precluding submission of an Application Data Sheet or any other paper which includes a claim of benefit to the filing date of this application.
  • Striking from the record all documents containing the signature of the practitioner.

On May 5, 2025, DAC and the USPTO agreed that the USPTO did not have to file an answer, and instead DAC will move for summary judgment. But why is the USPTO so severely punishing innocent inventors and their innocent licensees? How did the USPTO determine these sanctions were appropriate in the first place, and why is the USPTO (apparently) considering defending them? The sanctions are unwarranted against the innocent inventors and their licensee — there is no bad conduct on their part to punish. Nor will the sanctions serve to deter bad conduct since future inventors and assignees are likely to be as innocent as the sanctioned inventors and assignees.

The USPTO was created to discharge the Constitutional mandate of promoting the progress of science and useful arts. Forcibly terminating 3100 applications of potentially innocent inventors and their assignees is not on mission.