Mechanical & Electro-Mechanical Systems
Patent assets for mechanical inventions—mechanisms, assemblies, devices, manufacturing methods, and electro-mechanical products—drafted for enforcement readiness and continuation flexibility.
Disclosure built around the mechanism
Mechanical patents rise and fall on structural detail: interfaces, tolerances, load paths, kinematics, constraints, failure modes, and how components cooperate. We build disclosures that capture the core inventive concept while preserving claim flexibility for continuations and design-arounds.
When the invention includes embedded electronics or control logic, we handle the electro-mechanical integration without losing the mechanical heart of the asset.
Mechanical Systems
Devices, mechanisms, structures, assemblies, fixtures, and tooling.
- Linkages, cams, gear trains, latches, couplings
- Enclosures, housings, mounts, brackets
- Fastening, alignment, sealing, retention systems
- Manufacturing methods and process claims
Electro-Mechanical Integration
Actuation, sensing, and control—documented so claims stay flexible.
- Motors, solenoids, valves, pumps, actuators
- Sensor-driven mechanisms (force, position, pressure)
- Safety interlocks and fault response systems
- System + method + control logic claim sets
Built for prosecution and enforcement—not just filing
Mechanical inventions are often easy to describe but difficult to protect broadly. We prioritize claim architecture and alternative embodiments so you can defend novelty, navigate prior art, and maintain commercial coverage through the asset’s lifecycle.
Expect sharp figure planning, explicit alternative structures, and a draft that supports multiple claim paths from the outset.
What you’ll notice
- Clear nouns and reference numerals that track the drawings
- Alternative structures called out explicitly—not implied
- Multiple hooks for continuations and sub-combinations
- Support for ranges, materials, and constraints where useful
Common patent pitfalls in mechanical systems
Mechanical patents are often deceptively simple, leading many firms to draft claims that are either too easy to design around or too broad to survive prior art searches.
The “One-Element” Design-Around
A common pitfall is including too many unnecessary limitations in the first claim. If your claim requires five components and a competitor builds a product with four, they do not infringe. We use our engineering background to identify the “Minimum Inventive Set,” ensuring the broadest possible protection.
Static vs. Dynamic Claiming
Many mechanical patents describe a device in a static state. Stronger patents describe the inter-spatial relationship of parts during operation. This ensures that the patent covers the device’s unique movement or mechanical advantage, not just its physical shape.
Failure to Use Proper Antecedent Basis
In complex mechanical assemblies with dozens of parts—housings, gears, linkages—losing track of terminology can lead to § 112 “Indefiniteness” rejections. We use rigorous auditing to ensure every “lever” and “pivot” is clearly defined and consistently referenced.
Engineering background that shows in the work
We bring 25+ years of hands-on engineering experience to mechanical patent work. That means we understand load paths, tolerance stackups, failure modes, and manufacturing constraints—not just how to describe them, but how they affect claim scope and enforceability.
Systems-Level Understanding
We see how subsystems interact—and where the real invention lives.
- Structural analysis and load path documentation
- Kinematic relationships and motion constraints
- Thermal, fluid, and environmental considerations
- Interface definitions that support broad claims
Manufacturing Awareness
Claims that account for how things actually get built.
- Process claims tied to structural outcomes
- Tooling and fixture inventions
- Assembly sequence and method claims
- Material selection with claim flexibility in mind
Is this a good match?
Good Fit
Mechanical inventions where structure and interaction drive the value.
- Novel mechanism, assembly, or improved subsystem
- Design constraints that force clever structural solutions
- Systems with multiple embodiments worth preserving
- Products headed toward manufacturing and commercialization
- Teams that value claim architecture and continuation strategy
Not a Fit
Cases better served by a different specialty or approach.
- Pharmaceutical, chemical synthesis, or genomics inventions
- Plant patents or biotech requiring life sciences expertise
- “Idea stage” concepts with no workable embodiment yet
- “Fastest/cheapest” filings with minimal invention development
- Cosmetic filings meant only to impress investors
Partner-level work, lean structure
Our fee structure reflects operating discipline, not reduced capability. You get direct partner attention throughout—from invention intake through office actions and allowance—without the overhead of large-firm billing structures.
Transparent Scope + Fees
Clear deliverables and predictable expectations. You know what we’re doing and why it matters.
Direct Partner Access
Your work isn’t delegated to junior associates. Continuity from kickoff to allowance.
On-Site Visits Available
We come to your facility—anywhere in the US—at no extra charge when it helps the disclosure.
Flat-Fee Options
Scoped to complexity—figure count, embodiment count, claim architecture. No surprise billing.
Talk through your invention and options.
Send a brief summary, any CAD or screenshots, and what problem the invention solves. We’ll discuss likely claim targets and the most efficient path to a strong filing.