While very cool and seemingly well-designed, this seems like a derivative of the lock developed by the YouTuber StuffMadeHere. A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design.
The principle is the same, but this design is different and better in some ways. Depending on the generality of the claims a patent may be reasonable. The Enclave design is more refined/compact, but I'm skeptical of the longevity/durability of the wedge mechanism.
The underlying principle that's common between the StuffMadeHere and Enclave designs is 1. Decouple setting the pins from testing them, and 2. Do not allow the keyway access to physically manipulate the set pins while testing them.
Interestingly this same principle is used throughout cryptography, e.g. in constant time comparison algorithms. Basically, any partial success information leak can be used to reduce the search space exponentially. And that's what single-pin picking is all about, so it's cool that this idea has (finally?) migrated to physical security.
Except this isn't a constant time comparison. You still reach the "no more turning" angle at whichever pin is incorrect first. This is more like forcing the password to be fully retyped after each failed attempt. A good feature, but not a feature which eliminates side channels which might be there.
There's still no direct way to detect which pin blocks it from opening. Maybe you could determine if the failed pin is the same as a previous attempt by listening with a stethoscope, or very finely measuring the turning angle, but you can't directly feel out which pin. So there may still be a way to reduce the search space in theory, but that attack still seems very difficult to pull off, and for the complexity it seems vastly better than previous locks.
Well, it didn't advertise itself as a "very difficult to pull off lock", or a "vastly better than previous lock". It advertised itself as an "unpickable lock". That's a very strong claim to be making. I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a proof that it is impossible to reduce the search space down to sub-exponential.
Building a lock which does not leak any information about what's happening inside is equivalent to building a mechanical, room temperature quantum computer. For if that information isn't leaking to the environment in some way, there is no mechanism to decohere a superposition state. Hence in principle a mechanical lock which is secure in the information theoretic sense is impossible. It is still theoretically possible to make a computationally secure lock (eg a mechanical implementation of a hash function). But there's currently no real proof that one-way functions are actually one-way. The security of such a lock is subject to a foundational guess in cryptography.
My understanding of MPEP 2126-2128[0] is that prior art published to a website can be disqualifying.
I don’t like patents, because given the world population, any idea was had by someone that didn’t have the resources to file it. Publishing a timestamped design is, I believe, one of the least expensive ways to create prior art without creating patents.
If I am not mistaken, there have been many cases where prior art was available (and in some cases quite well known within the field) but did not come to the attention of the examiner (or the examiner did not recognize its relevance), and the patent was granted anyway. In fact, there was one such case on the HN top page today.
Getting it revoked is likely harder than successfully defending against a suit. Many aggressors will fold at the "here is obvious prior art, go find someone dumber to extort" phase.
First-to-file doesn't mean what I think you think it means.
Prior art, whether from another patent or from some other source, will still establish that the applicant is not an inventor and not eligible for a patent.
First-to-file (FTT) only differs from first-to-invent (FTI) when there is an "interference". That's when two or more separate parties are simultaneously applying for patents on the same invention.
Under FTI your priority date was the date you conceived the invention if you then worked diligently toward reducing the idea to practice up until you filed your patent application. If you stopped working diligently on reducing the idea to practice and then resumed it, the date you resumed became your new priority date.
What counts as a break in working toward reduction to practice sufficient to reset your priority date? How much documentation do you need to prove you were working continuously on it from your claimed priority date?
Figuring all that out can be expensive and time consuming and often gives results that seem wrong. It's almost random whether the priority date by this method actually matches who seems to morally most deserve the patent.
FTF gives priority to whoever files first. It doesn't produce any worse outcome than FTI and saves a lot of time and money for both the patent office and applicants.
would likely depend on whether the filing date was before or after this, but yeah, this would likely invalidate any claims for the most interesting improvements over the SMH designs
Need to see the patent or published application, and in particular the claims. I've got a few patents under my belt, but I'm not a patent lawyer. Typically when prior art is found during the preparation or processing of a patent application, the inventor can either argue for why their thing is new and different, or narrow their claims to the point where what's left satisfies novelty. Now at that point, one is left wondering if their idea is still worth patenting. But that's another matter.
Even as an inventor with some experience in the patent process, I still find it hard to second guess the patent office on what they will accept or reject as prior art. The lawyers are better at it than I am.
More than once I've rushed breathlessly to the lawyers with screaming hot obvious prior art, and they say: "Meh, it's not prior art because of X, Y, and Z, nice try."
The concepts employed in the StuffMadeHere video were derived from techniques used in other pick-resistant locks. His implementation is unique, of course, but he also derived his lock from other existing techniques.
There’s a big world of lock design and research out there, and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber.
> and I doubt this company simply decided to rip off a YouTuber.
While you’re likely right, YouTubers are massive in terms of reach and popularity, and there are heaps of cases where companies have done exactly that…
> A little strange to see someone applying for a patent for a version of someone else's design.
Apparently it's common depending on the country you live.
Some countries have a first-to-file versus a first-to-invent patent system. And so you end up with people (often inventors or retired lawyers) who spend their days filing patents for other people's inventions. The idea being that they only need one or two of the patents in their lifetime to result in a massive payday for it be all worth it.
Even in the US, which is first to file, your patent can be invalidated by published prior art that makes it obvious. The stuff made here video is a textbook example of an invalidating piece of prior art.
I assume they are going for a design patent, which they may well get (and doesn't protect against much other than direct copies). A method patent or a utility patent is a lot harder in light of the prior art.
The problem is that the patent system tends to just approve anything that meets a certain quality threshold. And then they leave it up to the courts to adjudicate whether a patent is invalidated due to prior act.
And so rather than litigate, roll the dice and potentially strengthen the patent's standing sometimes it's easier just to negotiate a deal with them.
Yes, it costs money to get a patent invalidated based on prior art. But: an amount that even a single person who stands to actually gain from having a patent overturned should have no problem with. You're asking the USPO to spend time redoing work, literally halting any other patent work they could be doing instead. So it's not a trivial amount, but it's also hardly a prohibitive amount if you actually want a specific patent revoked.
The AIPLA Report of the Economic Survey for 2017 notes that the typical patent infringement suit with less than $1 million at stake costs on average costs more than $600,000 dollars, while the typical patent infringement suit with between $1-10 million at stake costs on average nearly $1.5 million to litigate.
I also seem to recall that the LockPickingLawyer was able to break that lock using two separate methods that I didn't see addressed in the article, so I wonder how much this person just copied StuffMadeHere..
LPL “cheated” when picking SMH’s lock but still provided valuable feedback. Both weaknesses he found are easily fixed. In one case he could walk the deadbolt back because of a precision error/oversight in SMH’s lock. The other he stuck a small shim between the door and the lock to tension the second tumbler which is not an issue with this lock and easily fixed on SMH’s lock by closing the back with a plate.
