Baby bottom art is one of the most insane patents that
exist, and whoever in the USPTO approved this should definitely reconsider.
Essentially, baby bottom art is the process and an associated kit including the
materials required dipping the posterior of an infant in pain and stamping it
on a material to make a print. This patent makes no sense, because it probably
was done way before it was patented in 2001, and also is just a body part used
as a painting tool. The patent states in its background that, “the addition of
a newborn infant to a family inspires feelings of nostalgia and the related
desire to create a lasting remembrance of the child’s infancy. This patent
satisfies the need of a remembrance, but are all either utilitarian or
unfinished in nature.” The patent was published by Elise Cohen as US6213778.
They key claims of the patent are A method of painting using the posterior of an infant,
said method comprising the acts of:
1. A method as defined in claim 1 further comprising
the act of rolling the posterior of the infant during the stamping step.
2. A method as defined in claim 2 further comprising
the act of rolling the posterior of the infant during each stamping step.
3. A method as defined in claim 1 further comprising
the act of overlapping
I saw this in the Bloomberg article, and could not believe that it had actually been granted as a patent. Definitely one of the dumbest patents that I have seen, especially since there seems to be a plethora of prior art from it (i.e. making art by covering one's posterior in paint and then sitting down on the canvas / paper is certainly not a novel idea in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteChris
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that this method certainly does not deserve a patent. Using a baby's behind as the paintbrush and merely placing paint on a canvas seems obvious in the sense that it is very similar to painting, then again painting with a baby's behind is definitely a strange idea. Seeing as the method did in fact acquire a patent, I am surprised it took until 2001 to be patented considering that I am sure baby-bottom art was a thing before then. Nice post!
Hi Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThis is a bizarre patent that seems kind of gross. It is so stupid and pointless that I would consider it to be non obvious because who would ever use such a thing. There are better ways to remember a baby's early days such as bronzing their first shoes or saving some of their clothes. This patent deserves to be taken down by the USPTO.
Regards,
Liam Whalen
Wow, crazy that they allowed this through! I'm curious as to what prior art this patent drew upon? I enjoyed your analysis of the claims, but think it would be useful to see what related useless patents drew upon similar concepts - I know it helped me when I was analyzing useless patents.
ReplyDeleteHey Ryan Irwin,
ReplyDeleteWhat a wild patent. One thing that really throws me off with this patent is that it is tied to a body-part of a human being. I certainly wouldnt want to see more patents of the body like finger painting (I love to finger paint) or other personal things. Also, for this case, what defines a baby? Is there some sort of definition? Lastly why would anyone want to go through the trouble to even have this patent? Surely they aren'y going to receive any money in reparations for this. The more you think about it, the weirder it is.
Jack
Hi Ryan, what an interesting read! I think this guy is delusional enough to pretend he is the next james pollock or something. On a serious note, patenting "art" is generally unheard of...
ReplyDelete