Invention Diary #10: A Positive Patent Opinion and the Next Chapter

INVENTION DIARY · ENTRY 10

We have encouraging news from the international patent process: the written opinion for our original PCT application gives positive findings for all 30 claims on novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.

Project update: October 24, 2026.

---

A positive written opinion for all 30 claims

The USPTO, acting as the International Searching Authority, issued a written opinion for our original PCT application, PCT/US2026/041975. The opinion was completed on October 5 and mailed on October 22, 2026.

Its summary marks claims 1–30 “Yes” for each of the three assessed criteria: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. No claims are listed in the “No” rows for those criteria.

For us—Greg and Gayla—this is a meaningful and encouraging milestone. We filed the application on August 19, and we now have a favorable written assessment of the claimed invention from the international search process.

What this milestone means

This is a favorable written opinion in the PCT process. It is not a notice of allowance or an issued patent. Further steps remain before patent rights can be granted in the countries where we pursue protection.

The opinion concerns the claims in our original application. We are keeping that result distinct from the work on the redesigned device and the second application we are preparing.

The design has continued to evolve

In Entry #8, we described printing and assembling V35 and verifying its fit and mechanical operation. That milestone gave us a tangible model to discuss with engineering developers. It also gave us a reason to revisit how we document the invention.

Our recent work has involved more than making a drawing look finished. We have revised the device through physical checks, reconsidered how its parts work together, and listened to feedback from people using the earlier working prototypes.

A second application is being prepared

We described the original PCT filing in Entry #3. The design has since developed enough that we decided to prepare a second application directed to the redesigned device.

That preparation has progressed to a full draft, including the written description, claims, and abstract, with figure and element-reference work prepared for review. This remains a separate drafting and review effort; the favorable opinion on the original application is not an assessment of the second draft.

Turning development work into a clear description

Writing the application requires us to explain the device consistently. The names used for parts, the drawings, and the written description need to agree. When a design has been through many revisions, that comparison is useful work in its own right.

We are reviewing how the parts fit and operate together and which configurations belong in the description. We are also checking that the draft reflects the current development work rather than accidentally carrying forward details from an earlier version.

A complete draft gives us something concrete to review. It does not settle every engineering question. Physical testing and fabrication review still have their own work to do.

Keeping observations, ideas, and results distinct

The testing record includes several kinds of information: things we have checked ourselves, observations reported by testers, and ideas we want to evaluate. Keeping those distinctions clear helps us decide what can be stated confidently and what remains a question.

For example, our PLA+ print checks establish what we observed about unheated fit, assembly, and mechanical operation. They do not establish the durability or heated performance of a future metal version. Likewise, a suggestion from a tester can be valuable before we know whether a proposed change will work.

Sharing the journey while the details develop

We want this diary to show the decisions and work involved in developing SnuffRing. At this stage, we can describe the progress in preparing the application and what prompted it while keeping unfiled technical details within the patent and engineering work.

That leaves plenty to share: how testing changes our priorities, why some revisions deserve further investigation, and what we need to learn before committing to the next prototype stage.

What comes next

Our next steps are to use the favorable opinion in planning the original application’s path forward, continue reviewing the second application, and work through engineering questions about fabrication and prototype evaluation. We will report subsequent filing and examination milestones as they occur.

VetVention continues to assist us as we move SnuffRing forward. We appreciate that support and explain our connection on the Mission page.

Meanwhile, the Founding Tester Program gives interested local participants a way to get involved. The observations we collect through testing will continue to inform what we build next.