The White Book of Inventors Entrepreneurs creatives

Inventor. We are writing a book for you.

A book that summarizes a transparent method, based on the main successes and mistakes made by the inventors in our great family.

Lean Prototyping. The White Book of Inventors.

Presentation

Lean Prototyping is a method created from the missteps, successes, disappointments, frustrations, and of course, the successes of inventors and entrepreneurs whom we have had the opportunity to accompany over the last 12 years. 

Yes! There is also a bit of our professional footprint as entrepreneurs, professors, and private investors in more than twenty tech companies. But that’s the least relevant.

We know the value of your time and how intensive the startup cycle of a project can be. Therefore, rather than telling our life stories, we aim, in just a few pages and through a couple of examples, to bring to your hands the first “Step-by-Step” guide to turning any idea into a product and any product into the key ingredient for business development.

If you’re expecting a manual full of technical jargon and convoluted concepts, close the book. Don’t waste another minute. 

On the contrary, if you truly intend to launch a new product, devour it until the end and discover where 80% of inventors go wrong. 

We all have ideas, especially in bars and while we’re showering. We won’t judge whether most of them are good or bad. There is one undeniable truth: having a good idea doesn’t guarantee success.

The unlikely chance of hitting the jackpot and the misinformation turn inventors into easy prey for disillusionment and loss of hope. 

el libro blanco de los inventores

Lean Prototyping aims to debunk the myths that cause the failure of most inventors who manage to patent a product. 

Working hand in hand with leading companies from different industries has allowed us to identify common denominators in the process of transforming an idea into a product. Lean Prototyping is not a written manifestation of what its authors imagine. Lean Prototyping is a structured summary of the steps followed and taught to us by clients who have experienced failures and also those who have reached success. 

Ivån Bedia García  and Erick Remedios Muiños

PRÓXIMAMENTE (EN EL HORNO)
  • Chapter IV. From Footprints to Invention. The Study of Backgrounds.
  • Chapter V. The Technical Study. Approaching Reality.
  • Chapter VI. Prototypes. From Theory to Reality.
  • Chapter VII. Patent Your Invention. No Tricks.
  • Chapter VIII. Crafting Business Models for Inventors.
  • Chapter IX. Mass Production. From Prototype to Industry.
  • Chapter X: Create to Sell.

CONTENIDO DEL LIBRO BLANCO DE LOS INVENTORES:

Chapter I: What Type of Inventor are You?

Over the last decade, we have compiled a list of the most common phrases from entrepreneurs and inventors we’ve worked closely with. As you know, we are committed to optimizing your time, so we will only share the most popular one:

”
I’m all about the idea, I just want a small piece of the pie and have someone else handle the business.”

Imagine how devastating it is to hear that motivated entrepreneurs and inventors, with ideas or potential business opportunities that could genuinely improve the world, have such little willingness, desire, and drive to move their initiatives forward. 

This devastating attitude highlights a harsh reality: Most inventors blindly believe that their idea is so, so, incredibly good that nothing else is needed. As if it were some sort of divine miracle. 

This behavior only reflects a great lack of knowledge and even a touch of naivety, which automatically makes them easy prey in a red ocean. A red ocean devoid of ethics, armed with deadly tactics like feeding the inventor’s ego to lead them down shortcuts that condemn their ideas to failure.

The shared thoughts, false hypotheses, and behaviors of the more than 500 inventors we work with each year have allowed us to create a set of classifications that, far from aiming to generate stereotypes, are meant to help you identify with one or more profiles and react in time. 

Most Common Types of Inventors

The Get-Rich-Quick Scheme Inventor

He has no interest in entrepreneurship. He relies on the divine miracle of having had a great idea. His only concern is that no one steals his idea. This belief leads him to make investments in whatever legal protection instruments are sold to him. His goal is, with the minimum investment possible, to feel like the “all-powerful” owner of the great idea. 

As a very positive point, they accumulate high doses of confidence and self-assurance in their idea. Excitement is the main fuel, while, fortunately, family and close friends usually serve as the main brake for these inventors.

Unfortunately, the “jackpot inventor” usually makes very little progress in the development of their products. Upon discovering that their involvement is essential, that they must make investments, prove that their ideal product works, and that it solves a real problem in the market, they lose their enthusiasm and tend to abandon the process. 

It is very common for the decision to abandon the project to be made with a few thousand dollars less in the bank account. Investments in patents and other protection methods, completely unnecessary at this stage, often become the only goals achieved.  

The “Jackpot Inventor” can spend months, even years, promoting their patents. They may invest in a demo video and point to the inaccessibility of large companies as the only cause of their failure. The depletion of energy, enthusiasm, and/or the appearance of a substitute product are usually the triggers for abandonment. 

The Rapid-fire Inventor

The high frequency with which ideas arise is the main characteristic or defining trait of this type of inventor. In the first conversation, they usually clarify that they have more than a dozen projects, but prefer to discuss just one to be productive in their explanation and respectful of others’ time. This is appreciated. The reality is quite different, as they end up detailing each of their ideas, exploring the context of use, and constantly demonstrating their skills as an inventor.

The goal of the “Machine Gun Inventor” is to secure the resources needed to protect as many initiatives as possible. Like the “Jackpot Inventor,” they tend to reject any proposal that represents a real advance in the process of transforming the idea into a product. They may even fear the technical feasibility of their initiatives. The thought of any of their initiatives being physically impossible or others having similar ideas and/or proposals in the market terrifies them. 

The strategic goal of the “Machine Gun Inventor” is for a major market player, distributor, industry leader, brand, or multinational to pay a large sum for the exploitation of one or more of their protected initiatives. To achieve this, they are willing to pay for services from small consultancies or independent professionals, expecting an approach that will change the course of their professional career. 

Excessive trust in chance and the obsession with protecting products, sometimes technically unfeasible, are often the main causes of failure for this profile in the development of their projects. 

The “Machine Gun Inventor” is full of excitement and energy, something that is often lacking in other inventors and entrepreneurs. However, anything that deviates from drafting and presenting a patent is not part of their plans. They turn their back on product design processes, technical feasibility studies, economic studies about the product’s market potential, and any data that threatens the consistency of the “great idea.”

The dispersal of resources across too many projects, the lack of vision regarding the necessary steps to bring the product to market, limited knowledge of how a major distributor or strategic partner operates in the market, and in general, the lack of strategy, undermines the professional careers of these individuals. 

The Dependent Inventor

They are profiles with very strong performance in the professional field. They usually work for others, with excellent results. It is common for them to hold management positions in departments unrelated to engineering or technical areas. These are profiles with a high capacity for analyzing the main risks of bringing a new product to market; they typically haven’t done it before, but they tend to dedicate a lot of time to studying it. 

Once they have a clear understanding of the steps to turn an idea or initiative into a marketable product, they conduct a very thorough analysis of the risks, to the point where they almost completely overshadow the real business opportunities.

The Dependent Inventor spends a lot of time researching, defining possible strategies, investing in self-help books, business planning, leadership, and any other topic they consider relevant to achieving success in their business. The study and analysis of the situation usually result in lengthy descriptive documents, business plans, and other materials aimed at mitigating potential risks. 

The initiatives of these professionals are usually very close to the industries where they work. They tend to involve potential optimal solutions to improve processes in the companies they work for, and in some cases, they are proposals for substitute products to those promoted by their companies. Almost always, these are proposals with very high chances of success. 

They never reach the level of excitement that “Jackpot Inventors” and “Machine Gun Inventors” achieve. The solitude in the process is often a double-edged sword that leads to the abandonment of the project at very early stages. Before taking the first step in the cycle of turning an idea into a product, they usually turn to partners, allies, friends, or family for acceptance and, above all, companionship in the process. This often leads to one of the main common mistakes: giving away shares, stock, or exploitation rights of the invention, even before it is materialized.

Giving up their jobs, family pressure, and in many cases, the loss of social status, is often the main obstacle when it comes to carrying out the project.

Anonymous Inventor

El Inventor Anónimo, a diferencia del resto de perfiles, tiene muy poca ilusión, le falta confianza en su iniciativa y por buena que sea su idea, no alberga mucha esperanza en el posible éxito que podría alcanzar. Considera que todo estå inventado, que modificar algo existente no es muy relevante y que seguramente, habrå cientos de personas con ideas similares. 

Although a little skepticism towards initiatives isn’t bad, especially for making an objective analysis, the Anonymous Inventor distances themselves from any emotional connection with their initiative. Therefore, it’s very common for them to share the details of their future idea too soon, publish it, or simply abandon it in a drawer. 

The initiatives of the Anonymous Inventor are usually excellent. When identifying this type of profile, we help the inventor find arguments to start believing in their own idea. In cases where this commitment is not achieved and enthusiasm is not sparked in the inventor, the most recommended course of action is to abandon the project. 

Unlike other inventor profiles, the Anonymous Inventor easily gains the commitment and involvement of their surroundings. 

The Strategist Inventor

The Strategic Inventor, as the name suggests, dedicates just the right amount of time to designing strategies and listing the objectives needed to turn an idea into a product and, later, improve the product until it becomes the key ingredient of a successful business. 

In the initial stage, this type of inventor analyzes the market they are targeting without revealing the invention. They observe with an analytical vision, are capable of collecting data, and draw their own conclusions. In the first tasks they face, such as analyzing the technical background in previous patent records, they are able to complete the cycle on their own. However, even though they do so and dedicate dozens of hours to it, they hire professionals to ensure they don’t make mistakes in critical stages.

The Strategic Inventor focuses on the advanced stages of the project, specifically on the product industrialization process. Even so, they understand the importance of innovation cycles and are not opposed to the evolution of their initiative. They motivate their suppliers and collaborators to contribute to their initiative while documenting key elements for a future patent. 

Although they are clear that it is crucial to demonstrate the technical and business viability of their initiatives as soon as possible, at times they fail in the natural cycle order of turning an idea into a product. Nonetheless, they have the ability to gain advantages from their own mistakes. 

The Strategic Inventor usually has access to their own or external funding and is capable of taking risks once they reach a point of control over the situation, meaning when they believe they have enough information. 

The truth is that there are no “good” or “bad” inventor profiles. Each of the described profiles accumulates characteristics and skills that are essential in the process of launching a new product. 

It is impossible to achieve good results without maintaining a high level of excitement and confidence in the project. The challenges to overcome are so energy- and frustration-intensive that continuity can only be achieved with the drive of the Jackpot Inventor and the Machine Gun Inventor. 

The Dependent Inventor stands out precisely for their ability to observe, analyze, and document the process. On the other hand, the Strategic Inventor provides a very important balance between the ability to do and optimize the process, relying on those who have already gone through the cycle countless times. From the Strategic Inventor, we must highlight their ability to accept that mistakes are made. But above all, their ability to learn from these natural failures of the process itself. 

Transform and educate the inventor within you.

Juan is 68 years old; we had the opportunity to meet him at that age. The truth is, we would have loved to meet him earlier. Since he was 24, with little formal education, he started his first and only company. As you read, a company nearly half a century old that has weathered all kinds of “storms.” 

After several years as an employee at a Spanish gardening company, he began to question the tools and machines that were part of his daily routine. He couldn’t sleep thinking about improvements he could apply to some of these tools. 

The restlessness took him away from the gardens. 

He couldn’t convince his bosses or colleagues at that time. While everyone was focused on perfecting their work with the available tools, Juan dreamed and spent hours drawing transformed, innovative, and quite revolutionary tools for the time. 

As if that weren’t enough, family and close friends, instead of seeing him as a visionary, judged his hours of creation, bet little to nothing on helping him materialize some of his products, and of course, made it clear to him that, against German machinery and the industry giants, he would have very few opportunities.

Five years were enough for him to build a catalog of tools and machines transformed into sketches. After that time, he could show most of his creations on paper and had managed to formalize some patents. The excitement of feeling like an inventor, valuing the brilliance of his ideas, and the adrenaline caused by his patent titles made him believe he had conquered part of the success. However, he had not a dollar in his pocket. 

After dozens of attempts and with an extensive knowledge of the sector, he won over a prestigious German tool manufacturer with one of his inventions. The truth is that in this case, the idea presented did not exactly match any of the patents. 

He was very lucky; the factory itself recommended that Juan protect the product with a new patent. It’s true that Juan dreamed of the interested factory paying enough for him to focus on developing happy ideas, until he discovered that there was still a very intense process before these tools would reach the gardens he once worked on.

The agreement allowed him, without raising investment or continuing to bet with his own savings, to have a number of machines manufactured to bring to market. For over a decade, Juan didn’t make money from his great invention, but from his ability to sell the product he had invented himself. 

The ability to learn from mistakes is key to building a successful path. 

Juan had to sell many of his own machines to understand the optimal process from idea to product realization. Today, Juan is retired, dedicating very little to his former business activity, but he continues to invent. He left his children in charge of a Spanish company that generates several million euros in revenue. Juan took his products all over Europe and much of the United States, and his machines are distributed by more than 120 local companies. His company is among the 30 most relevant in the world in its sector.

Between laughs and with the humblest expression on his face, at a café in Madrid, Juan asks me to help him bring his main conclusions to as many inventors as possible who, like him, live on an emotional rollercoaster while trying to launch their products to the market. 

From Juan, to all the inventors with access to the “Inventors’ White Paper.”

Contact with the ground is the best way to come up with meaningful inventions. Many times, we think our clients have problems that aren’t as serious as we imagine. In my 40 years as both an entrepreneur and inventor, I never made as many mistakes as when I decided to distance myself from the gardens. 

In the gardens, in my own experience and that of the workers who used the tools every day, was the perfect setting to find improvement opportunities and, at the same time, new products. Inventors must always be close to the problem, to the customers who suffer from it, listen to and observe how they react—that’s key to inventing without losing your mind. 

Juan assures, without losing the humility in his face and with the patience of a monk. 

About support. That’s a tough one, assures Juan. 

It’s very easy for big brands, for the industry, for family, for friends, for investors, and even for customers, to step in once everything is done. 

The inventor is the only one responsible for achieving the first results and proving that they have an opportunity in their hands. Until they see a working product, it’s all a game. It may be an expensive game, but that’s how it’s seen.

At 20, I believed everything was possible and easy. A few gray hairs later, I was shown that by working hard, what seemed impossible can be achieved, but easy
 everything seems easy until you have to do it. 

It’s so complicated to turn an idea or invention into a product that can be bought in a store or on a shelf, that it’s almost impossible to think about many at once. That’s why I recommend working hard, but in one direction. I was only able to turn a product catalog into reality after 40 years of hard work. You see, those are the conclusions. 

Juan is or should be an example of professional evolution in the career of inventors. His main fuel, 40 years before achieving what he himself calls success, was fueled by an incalculable amount of enthusiasm and endless desires to bring his own products to market. Juan himself gifted us the term “Machine Gun Inventor,” as he calls himself four decades later. 

Chapter II: Introduction to Lean Prototyping.

Our commitment to inventors like Juan—along with everything we learn each day working hand in hand with leading innovation departments in the industry, and from the heartbreaking stories of inventors who lose everything along the way, including their dreams—has compelled us to gather the common denominators behind success stories and, why not, also behind the most resounding failures that have shaped our professional journey.  

Lean Prototyping is a transparent method designed for people who share a common goal: turning product ideas into high-potential successes. Lean Prototyping is the result of 12 years of experience working with entrepreneurs, inventors, and innovation leaders from multinational companies. It was born from the most common doubts, frequent mistakes, and the most striking failures and successes we have witnessed.

The method has four fundamental objectives:  

  1. Understand step-by-step the process of turning ideas into products with extremely high possibilities of success in the marketplace.
  2. Save money in the process of turning your idea into a product.
  3. Understand the common causes that lead most inventors around the world to failure. 
  4. Build viable products with a high chance of success in the market.

The process of transforming an idea into a market-ready product with a real chance of success is defined by a series of steps. If these steps are not known or their order is altered, the consequences can be disastrous for the future of the project.

Understanding the process—and the correct order of its steps—is so critical that over 80% of inventors who fail don’t do so because of poor ideas, but because they waste time, energy, and money on meaningless steps that divert them from the milestones required to move forward.

Step No. 1 – From idea to concept, and from concept back to idea.

The first step in any creative process is to analyze the information that makes us believe there is a problem worth solving. A brilliant idea is useless if the market isn’t interested. If you’ve believed until now that the novelty of your product was the key to success—think again. It’s not enough.

Precisely, the cycle “From Idea to Concept and from Concept back to Idea” is designed to provide you with a structured reflection exercise that will likely lead you to new conclusions. Through practical exercises, we aim to help you reflect on questions you may have never asked yourself before. 

We all have ideas—whether in the shower, at the bar, or wherever we find the most peace (let’s not get into details). But how many of those ideas are we truly willing to launch? A lack of time, resources, family responsibilities, and countless other excuses often lead us to set them aside. Many initiatives with great chances of success end up forgotten in a drawer—and this is a reality you’ve probably experienced too.

There’s no such thing as magic—we can’t guarantee the success of your project. But the truth is, if you follow the steps of Lean Prototyping without cutting corners, your chances will be well above average. In this first step, you’ll be able to put all your initiatives to the test and compare the expected chances of success for each one.  

As an early takeaway, the exercises we’ll guide you through in the “From Idea to Concept and from Concept back to Idea” cycle will help you identify connections between your product and the problem you aim to solve for your target audience. You’ll analyze the product from different perspectives and will likely reach new conclusions about essential functional requirements that should be included. Of course, it’s also likely that some features you previously considered fundamental will take a back seat—becoming future improvements or simply aesthetic elements of your ideal product.

Step No. 2 – Background of the Invention

Naturally, the main reason you’re reading this book is likely an idea for a product that doesn’t exist—or at least one you haven’t come across in your initial internet searches. 

Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba are some of the most commonly used search sources by the inventors we’ve had the opportunity to work with. It’s true that if a product isn’t listed on these platforms, it’s very likely not available for sale. However, you must be cautious—it’s quite common to find patents or intellectual property registrations that reference similar initiatives.

There are less popular but highly effective sources for conducting this type of search. In the chapter dedicated to prior art research, we’ll provide you with sources and methods that will help you understand—through examples—how to carry out effective searches for potential prior inventions similar to your idea or product. It’s completely normal for some prior art to appear during this kind of research. 

This discovery often feels like a cold shower for inventors. However, in our experience, rather than being a problem or an obstacle to launching your new product, identifying and studying prior art provides a clear roadmap. On one hand, it proves there is a significant problem in the market that still needs solving; on the other, it allows you to use that information to focus your innovation efforts on improving existing protected initiatives. There are almost always ways to improve them and protect new developments under your own name.  

To complement the innovative value and strengthen the differentiating aspects of your product, in the chapter “Does My Idea Already Exist?” you will learn how to use three methods for searching prior art and patents related to your invention. The first method focuses on locating patented inventions through searches based on standardized codes used in the international patent market. 

That’s right. Depending on the industry or sector your invention fits into, and the technological features of your product, you’ll be able to identify established codes that will help you search for prior art in international patent databases.

As a complement, you can also conduct searches through competitors who are positioned as industry leaders. These companies often have multiple filings under their name, many of which may refer to inventions similar to yours. 

The third method, although a bit broader and less precise, often delivers very good results. It involves a semantic search approach. By defining keywords that relate to your idea, you can identify inventions with features that, in some way, represent a technological precedent for your invention. 

As we’ve mentioned before, taking the time to conduct a thorough search using a combination of the three most common methods will allow you to structure a comparison that—far from creating fear due to the existence of similar patents—will become an essential guide for developing your product and drafting your own patent.

Step No. 3 – Technical Study. Inventing the Invention.

The technical study has a fundamental goal: to find and develop solutions that demonstrate the technical feasibility of your invention. While many inventors dive into the adventure with homemade prototypes and surprisingly clever DIY experiments, the truth is that a proper technical study goes much further. 

In Lean Prototyping, you’ll come across the phrase “balance between technical feasibility and economic viability” quite often. And for good reason—achieving a successful product is impossible without that balance. 

In pursuit of that balance, the technical study is divided into two main stages: experimentation and exploration. 

In the experimentation phase, the main technical challenges are identified, and the optimal team is selected to tackle them. Through theoretical studies and practical experiments, the goal is to confirm the technical feasibility of the product, while also documenting all the alternatives considered and the advantages of the chosen solution over the others.

In contrast, the exploration phase supports the previous one by helping to focus efforts on avoiding common mistakes such as “over-engineering” or “early attachment” to a single solution. 

Over-engineering is a major pitfall in the product development cycle. The term “over-engineering” refers to the technical development of solutions that add little value—or that already have widely available, standardized solutions. 

You’ve probably heard the popular phrase “reinventing the wheel.” Exactly. Over-engineering is more common than we think—it undermines product viability and often leads prototypes to fail at very early stages.

The term “early attachment” refers to the creation of dependency on suppliers at an early stage of the project. 

If our product includes a touchscreen, it’s important to evaluate the commercial alternatives available when selecting the component. For example, some options are much easier to program and can therefore lead to a faster and more cost-effective prototyping process. However, during the technical study, we have a responsibility to highlight the risks associated with the level of dependency being created—particularly the potential economic impact and, most importantly, the magnitude of those risks.  

In 95% of cases, inventors bring ideas for potential products that could be useful. These ideas are usually broad sketches of what the product might be. The technical study stage allows us to ground those ideas in reality, document their potential technical feasibility, and define how we will move forward with development in the future.

Step No. 4 – Prototype Design and Fabrication

Surprisingly, most inventors who come to our lab mistakenly believe that patenting the product should be the first step in the development cycle.

Let’s use common sense.

Do you really think your product idea won’t go through any changes during the development process? 

The previous steps will bring a new technical perspective to your idea. From a technical standpoint, it’s very likely that decisions will be made that deviate from the original concept. As a result, these changes won’t be protected, and you’ll be leaving the door open for other inventors to build on those gaps and secure patents for improved versions. 

Many inventors, after securing a patent, end up having to invest even more money in additional filings—or settle for launching products that are only partially protected. This makes innovation easier for companies that, by following the right steps, will manage to bypass the very protection the inventor was hoping for.

Among the greatest fears inventors face is the fear that their idea will be copied before it reaches the market. The inventor’s distrust toward the professionals involved along the way is both significant and completely natural. 

There are useful legal tools available to create safe legal environments. Signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is one of the most common. It’s important to clearly specify in these agreements what information is actually being shared and the duration of the confidentiality commitment. 

Taking shortcuts or trying to follow cheaper paths during the product launch process can carry significant risks. 

Once again, we invite you to use common sense. 

It’s no secret that factories invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to build infrastructure and acquire machines that enable mass production. For this reason, the success of a factory’s business relies on keeping its machines running continuously, producing millions of units as quickly as possible without changing their configurations. The more units they produce, the faster they recover their investment in machinery.

Even though this model is widely known—even among inventors—some still see industrial manufacturing companies as a means for light prototyping. This is a serious mistake.

When you approach a factory with a product that’s still in the idea phase, they will typically provide you with a quote for manufacturing a large number of units—and they will care very little about your product’s future profitability. A factory’s main concern is not determining the most cost-effective and suitable manufacturing method for your product. Their priority is to adapt your idea so it can be produced using the machines they already have in their facilities.

We often share with inventors that factories will become one of their greatest allies in the future of the product. However, approaching them too early can lead to serious financial consequences and potentially ruin your bottom line. 

By now, your perspective on the process of launching an innovative product to the market has likely shifted in meaningful ways. In the chapter “Prototype Design and Development,” you’ll gain a deeper understanding of the real benefits of a functional prototype. 

The fabrication of a functional prototype is not a linear process—it’s a cycle of trial and error. It serves to demonstrate that your product works, and more importantly, that it does so while maintaining forms that are viable and optimal for the subsequent stages of development.

Like any process of experimentation and innovation, you’ll experience moments of excitement and joy—but also times of deep frustration. 

There are three fundamental ingredients for a successful prototype design and fabrication process: iteration speed, interdisciplinary integration, and the expertise of professionals experienced in developing innovative products. 

Iteration speed refers to having a development method that allows for rapid testing of proposed solutions, selecting cost-effective options, and quickly learning from product–user interaction. Most products are not developed by a single professional alone. It’s very common for prototypes to require input from multiple perspectives and disciplines, such as mechanical engineering, industrial design, software development, electronics, and communications. 

Another common mistake at this stage is choosing teams that don’t include all the necessary disciplines. Bringing 11 strikers to a soccer match doesn’t guarantee you’ll win the game. You need the right integration of diverse specialties, depending on the type of product you’re developing. 

Experience in product development is essential to create a prototype with real potential for industrialization, keeping costs under control and ultimately leading to positive outcomes for your future financials. The process of designing and fabricating a functional prototype—one that closely resembles the final product in both appearance and functionality—is critical to achieving a successful product. You could hire the best designer in the world to shape your product, and they might contribute incredible ideas and deliver an outstanding visual concept. But if that professional lacks experience and understanding of future industrial processes, you could end up putting your initial investments at serious risk.

In addition to diving deeper into these critical insights for laying the foundation of a product with strong market potential, you’ll also explore the most widely accessible technologies on the market, understand the limitations of functional prototypes, and develop a development strategy that will help you organize the financial resources needed to launch your business—even from the very early stages of the project.

Step No. 5 – Protect What You Invent

We know—this step is key for you. 

For an inventor, obtaining a patent is like winning the Champions League for Real Madrid or the Super Bowl for the Miami Dolphins. 

Of course, we understand its real importance. But unlike what most inventors believe, obtaining a patent is not a final milestone that guarantees success—it’s just one more step in the process, and it doesn’t mean your product will be successful.

In the chapter “Protect What You Invent,” you’ll not only learn more about the most commonly used forms of legal protection in Europe and the United States—the markets we know best—but also engage with real examples and scenarios where patents played a key role in achieving a happy ending, as well as others where obtaining a patent too early backfired on its creators. 

Most inventors are unaware of the logical order for bringing an invention to market and end up making serious mistakes in their rush to secure the long-awaited patent. It’s like a surge of adrenaline that makes them feel the product is closer to success. On the contrary, patenting too early—and without the right information—can become a recipe for failure. 

There are five common questions that we aim to clarify, using arguments and practical experiences drawn from real cases—not just the well-known stories of the invention of the light bulb or the Chupa Chups stick, which are often repeated as motivational examples for inventors. 

  1. What is the right time to patent an innovative product?
  2. When and how can you find out if your product is patentable?
  3. To what extent—and for how long—does a patent protect you?
  4. What types of patents exist, and how can you choose the one that best fits your invention?
  5. Why can patents become a false rush of adrenaline for inventors?

It’s no secret that human beings are solely responsible for creating the conditions and tools to improve their quality of life. That’s why establishing a safe and organized structure to encourage the disclosure and introduction of inventions that promote development is an international priority. As you already know, technology is cumulative by nature, which makes it essential to study existing patents in order to form a solid judgment on whether or not it is viable to patent a given solution.

With this premise in mind, we can anticipate that the fundamental objective of patent law is to promote technological advancement and encourage creativity within a legal framework that protects it in all its forms. This objective also implies that not all inventions are patentable; to qualify, an invention must offer novelty and, moreover, that protected novelty must provide clear benefits to its users. 

Another common self-deception in patent drafting is the lack of clarity in the descriptive report of the invention. In an effort to maximize the chances of approval, some advisors resort to using overly complex words and convoluted phrases that are difficult to understand. If we’re not absolutely certain that our product is truly patentable and feel the need to rely on old tricks like this, chances are the patent will hold little real value. So, only file for a patent when it’s truly worth it. Don’t waste your money. 

When we combine the widespread lack of information among inventors with the conflicting opinions of professionals, we get an equation that, unfortunately—and all too often—does not protect inventors or support their motivation. Instead, it becomes a process that crushes the dreams of many brilliant minds. If you find yourself in a similar situation or want to avoid it, within these pages you’ll find answers like you’ve never heard them before. 

Step No. 6 – Business Models for Inventors

By now—even without having explored each chapter in depth—we can probably agree that no matter how good or innovative your product is, it’s not the only tool needed to bring your project to success. It’s essential that you’re able to design a business model and strategy that serve as a bridge between your ideas and the potential market whose problem you aim to solve. 

Inventors are often highly creative and spontaneous individuals. While these traits are usually the driving force behind their ability to create solutions that most people would never think of, it’s also true that they tend to face significant challenges when it comes to designing business models and strategies to transfer their knowledge and turn their products into real business opportunities. 

Unfortunately, more than 50% of the inventors we’ve had the opportunity to work with—after securing their patents, prototypes, and even industrialization plans for mass production—end up abandoning the venture once they realize their limitations and shortcomings in designing efficient business models that can turn their ideas into the driving force behind a profitable project. 

We all have a point of incapacity—a discipline or area in which we’re not experts, or tasks that literally terrify us. Inventors, despite creating brilliant products, also face this reality. The key difference between inventors who succeed and those who give up isn’t the amount of knowledge they possess, but rather the willingness and determination with which they tackle their shortcomings. Forming multidisciplinary teams and actively seeking support in areas outside their expertise are among the most common strategies used by the successful inventors we’ve encountered. 

If you’re one of the brave souls who never gives up and chooses to highlight your weaknesses instead of hiding or avoiding them, then this book—and especially this chapter—is for you.

Often the concepts of “Business Model” and “Business Plan” are confused. The Business Model is the logical map that outlines how inventors can extract value, raw materials, and technological fundamentals from society to transform them into innovative products tailored to the needs of potential customers. This logical map is based on an economic balance between the costs associated with the production process and the revenues derived from the commercial exploitation of these products. In contrast, the Business Plan is the tool that encapsulates the strategy and overall planning for the evolution of the business. It covers the main strategic objectives, defines the necessary resources, and outlines the economic expectations for the development of the model. 

Surely, at some point in your career as an inventor, you’ve thought that after a great idea, a patent—and in some cases, a functional prototype to validate its operation—are all the tools you need to sell the rights to your idea, make a lot of money with minimal effort, and spend your time sipping mojitos in the Caribbean while you dream up your next inventions. We don’t know if some have enjoyed that stroke of luck, but the hard reality for the inventors whose success we’ve witnessed is that they needed a solid business model and some market validations before that coveted moment arrived. 

The good news is that over the past 12 years, we’ve documented both the successes and mistakes of the inventors we’ve worked closely with. Furthermore, we have structured that experience into three business model patterns that will serve as inspiration for you to design your own—taking into account the main risks associated with each decision. 

Would you like an introduction for this step or additional content details?

The industrialization of a product refers to the process of transforming a functional prototype into a product that can be replicated—using industrial methods and means—in an unlimited number of units. As you already know, many inventors try to initiate the industrialization process before manufacturing a functional prototype. This decision carries risks that could jeopardize the entire process, especially when the inventor’s financial resources are limited. 

While it’s true that the unit cost of a product manufactured using industrial methods can be as low as 1% of the cost of a functional prototype, it’s also true that any transformation, improvement, or error at that scale can cost tens of thousands of dollars. In contrast, a functional prototype crafted with artisanal techniques provides the inventor and the engineering team with a trial-and-error cycle that allows them to learn enough before transitioning to industrial production—ensuring that changes which might otherwise cost tens of thousands of dollars can be resolved with much more modest investments. 

Nearly 30% of the products available on the market are manufactured in China. It’s an open secret that China’s industrial structure has drained the world’s most powerful manufacturing ecosystems. 

European and American industrial networks have been significantly impacted, and although we are all aware of the consequences—and indeed, we are experiencing them—we have very few business opportunities unless we can achieve manufacturing costs that are nearly impossible to match outside of the vast Chinese phenomenon. This loss of opportunity is transforming the behavior and business models of small Western factories, which are undoubtedly the most affected. 

Let’s put ourselves in context: no matter how small a factory may be, its facilities and machines represent million-dollar investments that can only be amortized and become profitable if mass production runs without interruption. Every minute a machine is idle represents significant losses for manufacturers. Faced with an evident shortage of customers—thanks to the very Chinese phenomenon—manufacturers have seen a great opportunity in the inventor ecosystem. This is why we now see these types of factories advertising their prototyping services. 

Once again, we appeal to your common sense. How is it possible that a factory—with expensive machines designed to produce millions of units—could also be the ideal setting for prototyping? Let’s not forget that the key objective of the prototyping process is to iterate and learn the best way to achieve the product’s functions. The answer is simple: it’s impossible. During prototyping, factories only ensure that the product is compatible with their existing manufacturing methods, which in no way means it’s the best or most cost-effective way to achieve its functions. In short, industrial production methods will be a strategic partner in your career as an inventor. Without their involvement, it will be very difficult to create a competitive product in the market; however, involving them too early poses more risks than benefits. 

Also, as a preliminary conclusion of the chapter, we must mention the tremendous risks associated with manufacturing a functional prototype with an engineering team that is divorced from the fundamental principles of the industry. This phenomenon is quite common when, instead of using specialized prototype development laboratories, we resort to freelancers as a “low cost” solution. While an industrial perspective should not be the primary objective for the first version of your prototype, it is important to adhere to basic principles so that any adaptations needed during industrialization are minimized. Of course, in the chapter “Industrialize Your Prototype,” in addition to outlining common industrial solutions and the key criteria to consider when initiating this process, we will also share some guidelines that we strictly follow at Let’s Prototype to manufacture functional prototypes that, besides demonstrating the product’s functionality from very early stages, help optimize investments in the product’s industrialization process.

Step No. 8 – Sell Your Product

Despite years of working closely with entrepreneurs and inventors, we certainly don’t have the ability to predict what makes a good or bad product. Most inventors look to us for validation of their ideas and for signals that bring them closer to success. With that in mind, despite our experience, we prefer to remain impartial and give equal importance to both very simple projects—technologically speaking—and those that truly aim to be revolutionary products. 

No matter how harsh it may sound, we’ve found only one common denominator between successful projects and those that end in resounding failures. That common denominator isn’t in the product—it lies in the inventor. 

Many inventors have a very narrow vision of what their project’s journey will be. Their dream begins and ends with a patent that they plan to sell, allowing them to live off it for the rest of their lives. Others, much less frequently, possess a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of the effort required to sell a product in the market—of connecting with customers and continuously learning from their behavior to improve the product’s performance. These few are usually much closer to a successful path.

Challenges such as determining the product’s price and selecting the optimal sales channels for each product are often major sources of uncertainty. The most common mistake in the pricing process is to focus solely on analyzing the production and logistics costs. Of course, this analysis is very important and controlling those costs requires significant effort. However, it’s also an open secret that prices aren’t set by listening to abstract voices telling us how much margin to add to the production cost. Instead, this decision is much more closely linked to the perceived value we can evoke in the end customers. This is why it’s crucial to incorporate this variable into the analysis from the very beginning of the cycle, just as we propose in the Lean Prototyping method. 

When we talk about sales channels, we refer to the optimal environments for selling our products. For many decades, the key variable in defining these channels was their level of popularity. According to some outdated theories, we were supposed to target the most populated, bustling environments to advertise our products—believing that this would maximize our sales opportunities by the law of probability. The truth is that analyzing the popularity of a sales channel remains important, although we now know that market behavior has radically changed with the democratization of the internet. These shifts demand that, as entrepreneurs, we not only find the most crowded channels but also those that are most appropriate for the user and guarantee a flawless experience. 

A few decades ago, coffee manufacturers had it very clear. They knew they needed to achieve the best aroma and flavor, maintain adherence to the production processes associated with their geographic denominations of origin, maximize the appeal of their packaging, and excel at negotiating with supermarkets—since the placement of their products on the shelves determined 100% of their sales outcomes. 

Today, these same manufacturers face new challenges in connecting with their customers—challenges that go beyond just balancing price and shelf placement in supermarkets. Their customers, in addition to appreciating aroma, now value the brewing time of a coffee, the product’s precise dosage, and its compatibility with widely available household appliances. These shifts compel manufacturers to seek sales channels that allow them to be present at the right time and place, in the most convenient way for their customers.

With this shift in understanding market behavior, our friend Pedro—heir to a coffee production company with a century of history—has managed to innovate not only in his product but also in his sales channels. Today, he sells coffee capsule organizers that are compatible with different models. This allows him to gather data on capsule consumption at home and help his customers make purchases exactly when they need them, all from the convenience of their own mobile devices. 

Don’t worry—we’ll get to the sales section in this practical guide for inventors like you, who understand that by now, customer convenience is just as crucial as the innovation we attach to the product.

Chapter III: Where Ideas Are Born

“I’m not an inventor, I just have an idea” 
 this is how the vast majority of people we speak with every year introduce themselves. The truth is, we love that beginning. In most cases, those who don’t label themselves as inventors do so because they see themselves more as entrepreneurs than inventors—and that means they not only have an idea that could change the world, but they’re also willing to make it happen. 

As we’ve seen before, for our idea to be considered an invention, it doesn’t have to be conceived by someone from another planet or look unlike everyday objects. A wonderful invention is one that a user can simply pick up and immediately make full use of without lengthy explanations. This effect is achieved when the invention is refined by improving upon an existing element. 

Unfortunately, daily routines, a focus on problems, and the supposed lack of time all work against our creativity. We firmly believe that no one is born an inventor, nor is anyone destined from the very first spanking to become merely a consumer of products created by others. Creativity is a skill that can be developed and honed through widely available methods. From childhood, we nurture it to varying degrees—even though, in many places, the education system actually stifles its development by prioritizing memorization over logical thinking. 

Apartando un tema tan relevante como el por qué somos mås o menos creativos y qué podemos hacer para mejorar nuestra capacidad de crear, centrémonos en describir los escenarios donde con mayor frecuencia podríamos obtener ideas de productos que nos lleven al éxito. 

I’m sure you’re already thinking about it—whether it’s while tossing and turning in bed, at the bar, or in the shower. This only highlights just how little time we have to reflect, iterate on our ideas, and, of course, create. 

We also assume that creating an innovative product is some sort of miracle, and that we’re meant to serve as the landing strip for those great ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

The primary tool for generating innovative ideas with extremely high potential for success is attention. It’s our ability to observe and listen—not merely see and hear—that allows us to deeply analyze the problems that surround us every day, problems that only a few are able to identify. This is the true breeding ground for ideas with remarkable potential. 

Keep in mind that the scenarios or sources of initiatives described below aren’t unique, nor are they fixed concepts. After working with countless inventors, we have gathered the most common elements from their stories about how their ideas originated.

Unsolved Problems.

Until a few years ago, when we first started working with inventors, we were firm believers that creating a new business meant identifying unsolved problems. However, working with hundreds of inventors each year has led us to conclude that it’s extremely difficult to find a problem for which there is no solution at all. This is mainly because, whether ideally or not, the human mind is always seeking alternatives—and that is precisely what enables us to move forward. 

Therefore, we should train our attention system not so much to hunt for unsolved problems in our daily lives, but rather to identify the troublesome situations we experience and observe every day. 

Didn’t coffee exist before capsule machines?

According to popular legend, an Ethiopian shepherd named Kaldi in the 9th century noticed that his goats became very lively after eating certain plants. Experimenting on his own, he tried these plants and experienced a caffeine boost. He shared this discovery with a monk, who was the first to brew the famous beverage as an infusion. But it wasn’t until as recently as 1986, under the Nespresso brand, that the first version of what we now know as coffee capsule machines hit the market. 

Was the problem solved? 

Coffee has been one of the most popular and accessible beverages from the 9th century to the present day. It’s no secret that its preparation methods have continuously evolved—with each version testing the balance between preserving its aroma and flavor and the time we invest in preparing it. 

Since Erik Favre’s first version, the problem was solved. Hundreds of years before Erik Favre was even born, coffee was enjoyed worldwide, and dozens of methods for its preparation had already become popular. 

While hundreds of millions of people drank coffee every morning, merely enjoying its aroma, Erik Favre focused on identifying problems or areas for improvement in the process of brewing and consuming coffee. 

Which ones?

Coffee capsules allow the product to be preserved without any risk of moisture, thereby ensuring a completely excellent experience. 

Coffee capsules provide a precise level of dosage that, when combined with the machine’s features, ensures that the coffee’s flavor is always consistent—avoiding the risks of poor preparation practices that, in one way or another, undermine the overall experience. 

The ease and efficiency of this new preparation method allow consumers to devote their time to what truly matters: enjoying their cup of coffee.

There’s no doubt that during his time as an engineer at NestlĂ©, Erik Favre didn’t focus on creating a groundbreaking product that would change the world. Had that been his aim, it’s unlikely NestlĂ© would have supported him. Instead, his focus was on finding improvements in a process that, without a doubt, had significant room for enhancement.

You’ve probably heard the phrase, “You need to create an innovative product and then learn how to create the demand.”

One of the gravest mistakes inventors make is thinking they have the ability to create a need solely from their creation—the product itself. Perhaps there might be an example that supports this theory, but in reality, we haven’t seen one.

A few weeks ago, while giving a lecture at a prestigious business school, we posed the question like bait left in the open: “Is it possible to create need?”

Using examples like the iPod or motor vehicles, almost 90% of the students—who were all engineers—were absolutely convinced that in these cases, need was created. 

If we delve into the iPod as a product, it certainly has easily identifiable precedents. The real need was to make daily activities and commutes compatible while listening to music. In this sense, at the end of the 20th century, Guglielmo Marconi tested the first portable radio transmission, so by around 1900, portable radios began to democratize. Users could move around with their device, more or less heavy, more or less bulky, more or less optimized for autonomy. But, didn't this need get met?

The Sony company, evaluating the market behavior with portable devices, did not just settle for improving their autonomy and listening quality. They discovered that users, in addition to listening to music or content wherever they went, greatly desired to choose what to listen to at any given moment. To address this evolving need, they developed and led the market with their Walkman and Discman, inventions that came to light in 1979 and 1984 respectively, following the introduction of cassettes and later CDs, capable of storing content that would later be managed through the devices Sony democratized in the market.

Understanding user behavior over the years was a key ingredient for Apple. The need existed and was being met, but not very efficiently. Users had to carry multiple CDs just to listen to whatever they wanted at any given moment. By capitalizing on the emergence of the mp3 format and the proliferation of the internet, Apple developed the iPod—a true revolution. It was a product that granted users the freedom to listen to music wherever they were—not just the 20 songs found on a CD, but countless hours of music—all through a device that fit in a dress shirt pocket and was so light it barely altered the fabric. 

So, do you really think that Apple created the need to sell their iPods?

I must also confess that the last time I posed this open question, a student with clear entrepreneurial instincts stated, “It wasn’t Jobs with the iPod, but who can deny that Marconi created the need?”

Before the transmission to portable radios, before the existence of batteries, even conventional radios, humans already had the need to express themselves, communicate, and be heard. The technological development surrounding this great need has allowed us today to have the opportunity to choose the information we consume and the format in which we do so.

No. Absolutely not. Marconi didn’t create need, nor does it make sense to cling to an idea that requires us to manufacture a new need in the market. Faced with such reflections—which, unfortunately, are all too common—we often encounter product ideas that solve no problem and are, therefore, doomed to failure. 

Surely you’ve heard the phrase: “If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse,” famously attributed to Henry Ford. Ford clearly understood that it wasn’t about creating a new need but about analyzing the existing ones and responding to them more efficiently. That’s why, instead of “searching for faster horses,” he focused on solving the challenges of industrial manufacturing for motor vehicles, thereby democratizing this type of solution. 

From Mr. Ford’s intriguing statement, we take a key lesson: customers won’t necessarily articulate the description of their dream product. Moreover, what they express may not always be entirely reliable—neither for the good nor for the bad. It is our responsibility as inventors to pay close attention to the behavior of potential customers, design efficient solutions—even ones the customer might never have imagined—and ensure these solutions fit their problems like a glove. 

When we say “for the bad,” we aim to highlight the significant risks associated with surveys, focus groups, and similar market behavior study methods. The common denominator of these approaches is that they rely on customer feedback or responses. In our humble opinion, when creating a new product, merely studying responses is not enough—in fact, it may be more beneficial not to ask questions at all. To drive an effective innovation process, we must observe user behavior and their reactions to the product, ideally in environments where they don’t feel observed. 

Over-Solved Problems

While most inventors focus on identifying problems that remain unsolved by the products on the market, the truth is that there are many business opportunities based on simplifying existing solutions. 

Frequently, we assume that by adding technology and complexity to products, we secure stronger patents and create more comprehensive solutions. However, this notion often backfires for many entrepreneurs, as excessive integration can lead to two problems: making the product far more expensive than what a customer is willing to pay to solve a problem, and/or making the product more complicated to use.

A clear example of this business opportunity can be seen with the Cigar Humidity Controller. Cigar smokers face a significant challenge in properly preserving their cigars. To address this, they use containers—typically made of cedar—designed to maintain a relative humidity between 65% and 70%, which is considered the optimal environment for preservation. When cigars are stored in conditions where the relative humidity falls outside this range, their quality is at risk. That’s why monitoring the relative humidity in these storage containers is a daily task for cigar aficionados. 

Many companies in the sector have ventured into developing digital hygrometers that connect to mobile apps, allowing users to monitor the relative humidity of their cigar storage containers at any time. This solution incurs a fixed cost for the companies, covering the maintenance and updates of the mobile apps on the main operating systems—both iOS and Android. In addition to these maintenance costs, there are also manufacturing costs for each digital hygrometer sold through specialty stores and online platforms like Amazon. From the customers’ perspective, these solutions come with their own challenges. Users must navigate a learning curve to sync the devices with the mobile app, sacrifice valuable space on their mobile devices, and ultimately, pay a price that reflects the ongoing costs incurred by companies to maintain these mobile applications. 

As an alternative to that solution, at Let’s Prototype we designed and manufactured a device for an inventor that we call the Cigar Humidity Controller. The design and development process focused on creating a device that occupied very little space in the storage container, maximized battery life, and—most importantly—did not require a mobile app to alert users. The result was a small electronic chip (sensor) that, once placed in the container, communicates only once with a mobile phone to request the user’s phone number or the initial configuration for the humidity range to be monitored. From that moment on, the device is capable of analyzing the relative humidity of the storage environment for two years without any user interaction. Only when the relative humidity poses a risk to the cigars does the device send an SMS alert to the user. 

Clearly, the Cigar Humidity Controller addresses the same need as other widely available devices in the market. It spares users from having to continuously monitor the condition of their humidors. Instead, with the Cigar Humidity Controller, they don’t have to use up space on their phones—and consequently, they aren’t burdened with the cost of maintaining entirely unnecessary applications. 

The addition of complexity to a product or the piling on of extra features in its design does not, in itself, represent a competitive advantage. Competitive advantages are much more closely related to product simplicity and a focus on solving a problem excellently—while ensuring that customers use the product in a simple way and pay only what is fair to appreciate the value we intend to provide. 

It would be a mistake to think that in all cases, when we develop products that aim to simplify a solution that excessively solves a problem, we give up part of the price users are willing to pay for the solution. Although in many cases simplification is achieved through a process that involves “decaffeinating” the product, the truth is that some entrepreneurs have managed to maintain, even maximize, economic performance by bringing their simplified solutions to market. The Remarkable is a clear example of this type of scenario.

Many users attach great importance to the notes we take during meetings, and keeping them organized can quickly turn into complete chaos. When studying or reviewing a book, we appreciate being able to make marks, create our own diagrams by annotating texts, and link concepts with lines. These techniques help us capture and remember information more effectively. Leading manufacturers of mobile devices have recognized this significant need, which has led to the development of tablets and smart styluses. These intelligent pens allow us to create our own annotations on a device’s screen, which can also be used to send emails, watch videos, and browse the web. 

A few years ago, we witnessed the market launch of the first version of reMarkable, a device based on what we now know as e-paper. Its founders dismissed the myriad possibilities offered by a traditional tablet and focused on replicating the sensation of writing with a pen on paper. They achieved this so successfully that, despite their devices having connectivity limitations, forgoing advanced connectivity features and a web browsing interface, they have managed to stay in the market with their electronic notepad—priced very similarly to, or even higher than, high-end mobile devices designed to address that need.

Therefore, inventors, our conclusion from examples like reMarkable reaffirms that the most profitable innovation in the market isn’t about piling on senseless features to impress users or overwhelming them with technology. Quite the opposite—the key to success is to understand the essence of the need and to be truly disruptive in the way you address that specific need.

Demographic transformations.

Observing and analyzing market data is one of the most effective tools for drawing conclusions that can inspire inventors and entrepreneurs to develop a new product. It’s no secret that in today’s globalized world—where communication is ubiquitous, employment opportunities arise dynamically, and cultural experiences are readily shared—an unprecedented migratory flow has emerged. Its magnitude is such that the customs and idiosyncrasies of a society can be enriched and transformed by these demographic changes.

In Spain during the early 1990s, it was unlikely to find food products on supermarket shelves that didn’t belong to the Mediterranean diet shared by Spaniards. Today, 100% of markets have at least one section dedicated to Latin products to serve the growing immigrant population residing in the country. This shift in product offerings is a direct response to the undeniable demographic changes brought about by Spain’s more flexible migration policies toward Latin American societies.

Focusing on Spain as the setting where our invention fabrication lab was born, we can see that until very recently, baseball was a little-known or unpopular sport in society. It still is to some extent, but in cosmopolitan cities like Madrid—where the population density of immigrants is so noticeable—this sport is gaining increasing relevance. Like football, baseball is a sport that requires a large number of participants to play a game and demands specially adapted fields for practice. Such facilities are only developed in places where the sport is a true passion. The lack of specialized fields, along with the challenges of coordinating enough players to organize games, led our clients to commission us to develop a virtual field. This solution is fully compatible with the facilities of an entertainment center in commercial premises, creating a virtual scenario where a player can independently practice batting by simulating ball trajectories on a screen and recording real-time data that determine the player’s efficiency. It’s true that similar initiatives have already been researched worldwide, especially in the United States. Nevertheless, our clients, together with our product development team, have identified clear improvements that we hope will soon provide a complete and realistic solution for Madrid’s new residents, allowing them to continue practicing their sport while overcoming the challenges they’ve encountered. 

Hospitality is one of the industries that adapts and transforms the most in response to demographic changes. Just look at the growing number of consumers of Japanese and Mexican cuisine worldwide, driven by the social transformations triggered by these demographic shifts. The democratization of international dishes—and the ease with which people can access quality standards for these meals across different countries—has motivated restaurant chains and small businesses alike to develop innovative machines that emulate very complex and delicate preparation procedures to produce top-quality international dishes. At Let’s Prototype, we have immersed ourselves in the world of high Mexican cuisine to design tortilla-making machines that produce tortillas in a way that closely follows the oldest and most deeply rooted recipes in the country’s culture. Similarly, we have developed engineering projects that resulted in machines designed to systematize the procedures involved in sushi preparation, all without sacrificing the textures and quality standards that have made this dish so popular in Western culture. 

Not only can demographic changes driven by immigration reveal new opportunities, but simply analyzing societal structure data can also lead to conclusions that spark the creation of new products. For example, the analysis of Spain’s aging population—and the overwhelming data forecasting the rising average age over the coming years—has become a common source of inspiration among the inventors we’ve worked with during the early years of our lab. We have even participated in developing electromechanical belts designed to deploy a sort of cushion to help prevent hip fractures among the elderly when they experience common falls. These devices are even equipped with features that can alert caregivers to the potential for such falls by mathematically analyzing the behavior of older users wearing them. 

The growing wave of dependency among the elderly, driven by the aging of society itself, has also been the cornerstone for some inventors who have decided to innovate in non-invasive remote monitoring solutions. These solutions allow the elderly to carry out their daily lives without feeling that their privacy is being invaded, while keeping their loved ones informed about their daily activities and preparing these devices to generate alerts when the routine of the elderly is disrupted.

Without a doubt, growing as analysts of a society’s demographics—and our own development as global citizens—opens many doors to insights on the development of new products. This enables us to seize the growing business opportunities that arise from evident conclusions, which often remain imperceptible to those who don’t pay attention to such details. 

Emergence of new technologies.

Inventors and entrepreneurs are naturally inclined to study the latest technological trends, stay updated on, and test the newest products launched in the market. This serves as an excellent starting point for an innovation process and the pursuit of new opportunities. Regarding this common tendency among those of us who share the “Inventor” DNA, we only need to avoid a narrow-minded view of the innovation achieved. 

A biased analysis or perspective on new products refers to the view shaped by the marketing strategies surrounding a given product. For example, around 2009, Microsoft began to popularize its famous Kinect sensor. When we talk about this sensor, you likely recall the Xbox video game console, as the product was launched as an accessory to this gaming system, aiming to respond to the latest advances that Nintendo had popularized with its Wii model, which had been democratized in the market since around 2006. The major innovation of the Wii was its controller, which allowed players to control on-screen avatars using physical movements—transforming video gaming into an activity for the whole family. Microsoft’s response with Kinect was decisive; they entered the market with a sensor that, without the need for controllers, could precisely capture and reproduce the movements of players in front of the screen within various game avatars, thereby offering a much more realistic and immersive experience. 

Regardless of the assessments we might make about the competitive dynamics between these two tech giants, we must not lose sight of what’s truly important. With Kinect, Microsoft brought to market a relatively affordable, portable device capable of analyzing human movement and voice recognition like never before. 

A biased view of this product might lead us, as inventors or developers of innovative products, to focus solely on creating new games for Microsoft’s ecosystem based on the sensor’s technological capabilities. In contrast, part of our Let’s Prototype team experienced firsthand the development of a solution that later became known as Neurobia Research. This solution was based on a mathematical model that, by leveraging Kinect’s precise tracking of 21 points on the human body, was able to accurately and quantitatively assess and compare the motor evolution of patients who had suffered acquired brain injuries, especially strokes. 

The famous Microsoft sensor for its latest gaming consoles, in addition to enabling precise movement diagnostics to complement medical assessments, was later used as a basis for developing other optimal solutions to restore the motor abilities of these patients—and even to help them recover language-related skills. I fondly recall the moment when, for the first time, we managed to simulate an Olympic stadium scenario on-screen, where physiotherapists, based on their precise assessments of patients, pre-recorded movements that were then simulated by an avatar. This avatar guided patients from their homes, indicating the objectives to achieve with each movement. Moreover, during medical consultations, specialists could quantitatively evaluate and display in graphs the percentage of success and progress for each of the patient’s essential movements, enabling them to prescribe the recommended exercises with much greater precision. 

The vision of the medical team and mathematicians we had the opportunity to work closely with allowed us to identify, in a sensor originally designed, marketed, and intended for gamers, an optimal solution to democratize and substantially lower the cost of physiotherapy—without sacrificing the individualized recommendations offered by specialists. This is precisely the creative capacity that we, as inventors, must develop so that the evolution of essential technologies across various industries can be harnessed to create products that greatly benefit society. 

In general, technological advances across different industries often have significant applications in other development projects, as evidenced by the example above. 

At the end of the 19th century, specifically in 1916, discussions began about unmanned aerial vehicles known as “Aerial Target.” It was a military solution that, despite the challenges of controlling them in flight, proved useful for training fighter pilots in mid-air shooting exercises.  

Despite the great progress made with the “Aerial Target,” the first drones known in the market did not truly advance until the 1990s. The size and weight of electronic components limited flight capacity. Moreover, without democratized GPS technology, efficient management as we know it today in this type of aircraft was impossible. It seems like it was many years ago, but it wasn’t until the 1970s that GPS technology began to be democratized in the military world, and not until the 1990s that it could be used for solutions in other industries outside the military environment. Precisely, this democratization of GPS use and the high level of precision achieved today has been the main trigger for us to enjoy real spectacles led by unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) today.

In addition to developments in electronics, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications, it is essential to keep a close eye on the countless advances related to the composition of new materials. 

The pressing need to create more environmentally responsible solutions, to replace single-use plastic-derived elements, and to address other general priorities of today’s society is leading us to very encouraging conclusions. These advancements are evident both in the democratization of new compounds and in adapting them for use in the prototyping industry—a development that is fundamental for reducing the adaptation curve from functional prototypes to final products ready for commercialization. 

Specifically, at Let’s Prototype we have had access to photosensitive resins with high-temperature resistance and other specific properties that have enabled us to achieve mechanical solutions with tremendous potential to radically transform certain procedures associated with managing waste with a risk of biological contamination in the healthcare sector. This solution helps avoid the use of single-use plastic containers, which represent a significant portion of the contaminants in that industry. 

Be careful. It is just as dangerous not to stay informed about new discoveries and available technologies as it is to cling too tightly to them. For those of us who love technology and follow advancements so closely, some discoveries can be so exciting that technological progress itself becomes the primary motivation for developing a new product. In these cases—which occur more frequently than we’d like—the priority isn’t to solve an existing market problem in a different way and then build a product and business model around that solution. Instead, the focus shifts to using new technologies, even when it doesn’t make sense and simpler methods could achieve the same results. As we’ve explained before, innovating just for the sake of innovation isn’t very meaningful; everything we do must be grounded in the actual usage and benefits that our customers ultimately experience. 

Sometimes, the obsession with using a specific technology in a product can become so dangerous that the inventor may be tempted to patent or invest time and money in protecting the intellectual property of a product whose technical and economic viability hasn’t been proven.

Copy as if hell didn’t exist. Then innovate.

Although it may not be politically correct, you really need to pay close attention to what’s happening in the market. If you plan to create an innovative product that changes the game and has clear advantages, you must know better than anyone the benchmarks against which you’ll be compared in the market. 

Many inventors fail by treating “over-engineering” as a competitive advantage. Over-engineering refers to the phenomenon where inventors and technical teams add extra functionalities and technical complexities to products without any market-driven justification. 

For example, if we’re designing an electric vehicle for delivering packages inside buildings, the focus should be on driver ergonomics, facilitating user-machine interaction, optimizing the vehicle’s weight, and maximizing its load capacity. Attempting to differentiate with superfluous functions—such as managing vehicle lighting, advanced suspension, modern anti-collision systems, and other technologies—will likely add a list of future costs that customers will have to bear, without actually valuing these details as essential. 

Rather than adding features and falling into the trap of over-engineering, we recommend “decaffeinating” products to expedite the arrival of innovative solutions to the market. It’s true that innovation is key and provides an advantage, but this only holds when we’re enhancing the functional requirements that are truly essential to the customer’s perception of value. 

To ensure we have useful information, there are two techniques that tend to provide excellent results: reviewing the background of related patents and analyzing public reviews of competitors. Combining these variables can create a key roadmap for staying focused on what truly matters. 

The first source of inspiration is yourself. Most of the innovative products we develop in our labs stem from the daily challenges our inventors face. These needs are often met with unorthodox—and sometimes rudimentary—methods, but the reality is that there are alternatives we simply cannot ignore.

For a long time, we worked on developing a network post—a support structure useful for paddle and tennis courts. The innovative goal was to integrate a ball-launching machine into these posts, despite their standardized geometries. This way, clubs purchasing such courts wouldn’t just rent them out to teams for leisure play; they could also open their doors to individual players during training sessions, thereby maximizing their revenue. 

In addition to the challenges related to dimensions—which you can surely imagine—a critical point in the discussion was setting the launch angle of the balls. Among the founders, opinions varied, and the fact is that we couldn’t keep increasing the ball launcher’s complexity just to achieve a customizable angle feature based on users’ preferences. 

As an exercise, we took on the role of observers at the courts where coaches and players practiced with automatic ball-launching machines. To our surprise, during training sessions the machines were positioned at a fixed point with a specific launch angle. So, rather than adding complexity to the product, we focused on replicating that exact launch angle. 

It is very common for inventors to efficiently identify unsolved problems. In most cases, they are spot on with their assessment, but creativity—by its very nature—leads them to envision solutions that stray quite far from reality. This all-too-common scenario minimizes a product’s chances of success.

It is not possible to improve a product by turning our backs on existing options, however rudimentary they may seem, nor can we arrive at efficient solutions without experiencing competing products firsthand. 

Before rushing into investing in a patent whose functionality is unproven, it’s essential to invest in acquiring products that represent an alternative to your solution. Moreover, it’s highly beneficial to test your product in practical experiments with users other than the inventor, as the inventor is often too attached to the idea. 

Would you like any further adjustments or additional details?

We believe that the most valuable tool for successful inventors is more closely related to their ability to observe than to their ability to create. Observing and documenting existing problems is one of the key skills every entrepreneur should develop. As you read, you’ll realize that this is a skill that matures and is honed through techniques that have been democratized in the market.  

We make a slight distinction between entrepreneurs and inventors. Of course, this distinction is more based on our experience than on any scientific study. 

Entrepreneurial profiles tend to be more focused on selling products—they show less emotional attachment to the idea itself. Their primary goal is to discover unsolved problems in the market and build innovative solutions. In contrast, those who self-identify as inventors are often less willing to see their ideas through; they seek recognition for their inventions, aim to secure patents, and look to profit from the brilliance of their ideas. 

Unfortunately, in very few cases do inventors manage to profit from their ideas this way. For that reason, we encourage inventors to train as entrepreneurs and shift their perspective. Among those inventors who succeed, we’ve observed a much more efficient and profitable business development process. 

Therefore, inventor, you absolutely must master business techniques and market research methods that allow you to ground your idea and focus your innovation on high-impact solutions. Analyzing user behavior—as reflected in product reviews—is an excellent way to start your journey. 

Do you already have the idea? If you have the idea or have identified the problem to be solved, you’re already one big step ahead. I recommend making a list of keywords that users might use when searching for solutions similar to the product you have in mind. 

Currently, there are very affordable tools that can help us identify the best-positioned and best-selling products on Amazon based on the search results for these keywords. At Let’s Prototype, we use Helium 10. Imagine how useful that information is: in just a few minutes, you’ll have a list of your future competitors, the number of units they sell, and the markets they’re active in. 

Once you have this information, focus on the products with the most reviews. You can compile a document containing these reviews in order to use artificial intelligence tools for analysis. 

Using graphical tools will help you better understand the problem and quantify the innovation opportunities for your product. It is recommended that you draw a function map of the product, separating the fundamental features from the complementary ones (the less critical elements for selling the product). Once you have mapped out the functions, you can identify which features receive the most positive and negative feedback from users. This map will allow you to compile a list of mandatory and necessary functional requirements—since they determine the product’s market viability—as well as a list of elements that could be improved, categorized into those that are vital and those that do not significantly influence the purchase decision. 

This newly updated map of functional requirements should be cross-referenced with an updated review of related patents. Keep in mind that we are not just looking to innovate by improving an existing product; we aim to do so in a disruptive way and, in the future, protect our conclusions. 

The combination of the results from your reviews map and the background patent study will allow you not only to determine what the first version of your product should look like—in terms of innovative features and corrected flaws—but also provide you with clear guidance based on the research of other inventors and companies who have faced the same challenge.  

Let’s see it in an example! 

Magnetic window cleaning tools have made a remarkable impact in both the European and U.S. markets. According to sales analysis tools, thousands of units are sold daily in the United States. This demonstrates that the problem they solve remains highly relevant, is shared by a vast number of users, and, moreover, these users are willing to pay for a solution. 

In contrast, when analyzing the reviews of the leading vendors, we see that they accumulate thousands of complaints, tarnishing the brand image of the vast majority. Over 90% of these complaints focus on either the physical effort required to move the device across the glass or its inadequate ability to adhere to the surface. This information reveals that these tools lack a system that allows users to customize the adhesion levels based on the thickness and characteristics of the glass they are intended for. 

Before we worry about geometry, aesthetics, packaging, size, or estimated logistics costs, we have a major challenge to address: demonstrating the technical feasibility of a mechanism that allows us to adjust the adhesion levels between the tool’s components, so that it can be used effectively on any type of glass.  

Following the recommendations above, this conclusion or innovation objective should be carried over into patent records. The goal is to identify—and, if necessary, study—the alternatives that other inventors or companies have protected, as well as the outcomes achieved with these methods. 

The combination of information obtained from both sources will allow us to create a very well-defined innovation plan, as well as determine the feasibility of filing a future patent—one whose innovative claim would be precisely the capability for customization. 

Chapter IV: From Traces to Invention – The Study of Prior Art

Download Chapter IV.

For us, it’s extremely important to hear your opinion. To include topics of your interest and, of course, to receive feedback that allows us to improve this manual dedicated to the inventor community.

ÂĄAyĂșdanos con tu experiencia!

 San Juan Ingenieros, S. L, is the owner of the domain www.letsprototype.com, and in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 1679/2016), we will process your data exclusively to handle your information request. You have the right to rectify or request the deletion of your data at any time via hello@letsprototype.com.