Publish a paper or apply for a patent for this kind of research/invention ..?

Question

So suppose that nobody thought of installing solar panels on the top of houses to generate electricity or for heating before. The solar technology was there, but nobody thought of using it for houses.

The guy who first thinks of it, should he apply for a patent or do a research and then publish it or should he do both?

Also if he applied for a patent, should he just propose this invention as one general patent which is house+solar panels on top (with some other designs, like using parabolic troughs or a solar dish..etc)?
Or should he apply for multiple patents for the general idea and the other designs?

I have a similar invention and I'm confused whether I should go for a patent or not.
Keep in mind that my research only covers the possibility of it working and actually be very useful and profitable. But it doesn't cover all the details of exactly how to install it or what the materials is it made from.

Like if you go back to the example of the house, my research covers how much energy does the house require,how much the solar system provides, and how much will it save. But it doesn't show exactly the real components, like what kind of absorber, or what kind or piping system should be used ...

Answer 1

You don't have to have a working model to apply for a patent, if that's what you're asking. But it does have to be feasible (no wormhole travel or perpetual motion machines).



There are patent lawyers who know the ins and outs of the process, and will first do a search to see if a similar patent already exists (you can probably do that too, but I don't know where to go on that, and they'd probably be more thorough).



How specific your patent is probably depends on if there's related patents already there or not, and if there's more than one unique part to the device (can it be broken into subunits that are still useful or interesting in their own right?).

Answer 2

Unless your description of your invention enables OTHERS of "ordinary skill in the art" to carry out your invention, it is not considered "enabling" and is therefore rejected. You do NOT need to know how to make it work, let alone have one that does work. You simply enable OTHERS to make and use the invention.



Also, your invention needs to be 'new and nonobvious', meaning that it would not be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill to combine or improve any other existing inventions to make the one you're claiming.



For instance: solar panels on a flat mounting surface would not be patentable merely because that flat mounting surface happens to be on the roof or on a satellite arm, once the original invention is disclosed as having a flat mounting or it is an obvious improvement for that invention.



Without a properly qualified patent attorney, you are unlikely to obtain any patent on your own, or it will not be valid or enforceable if you do happen to have one issued.



Whether your invention is already patented isn't the point. The question is whether your invention has ever been used in public or disclosed in any publication anywhere in the world, or any equivalent of your invention, which would make your invention not "new". It also cannot be an obvious improvement or combination of any of the above.



Add: You can hire someone to do a "patentability search" once you have clearly specified exactly what your invention adds to the state of the art. If you don't already know that, then that's where you start.

Answer 3

If the idea is patentable, patent it first. If you were to publish it first, it would be "in the public domain" and non-patentable.