New patent app shows Apple fighting grime on iOS devices

“Yesterday, US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals a rather inventive idea of fighting grime on your iOS Devices,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.

“We were the first to reveal Apple’s initial patent on this subject in August that focused on using a vaporizing method involving a physical vapor deposition chamber,” Purcher reports. “In Apple’s latest method, they reveal an alternate method of fighting grime that uses mechanical wave mechanisms that could use audio or physical vibrations”

Purcher reports, “The interesting fact is that Apple has expedited this patent application which was only filed seven months ago. Apple is apparently out to fight grime on all iOS devices in the future, and before you know it, they’ll be called the Grime Busters! That’s right: Who ya gonna call? Grime Busters!”

Read more in the full article here.

11 Comments

  1. It seems clear that Apple’s engineers are at least working on grime which is something we all fight with every day cleaning and recleaning our iphones, ipods or ipads. This could be a big with consumers. So hurry up Apple and start killing those little particle bastards!

    1. In fact, there are already Tech companies who keep everything locked up and do NOT file for a patent to avoid being copied by chinese or korean companies. It’s sadly true.

      1. The Asians can reverse engineer anything within 30 days, so that idea of locking them up, is a little strange and too James Bond. Unless your product is out of the public’s view, that’s not a wise approach.

  2. Tell that to Apple who licenses their touch technology to the likes of IBM and Nokia. If anything, it’s a notice to copy cats to stay the f*ck away from this or that idea they’re patenting. You’ve got it all wrong their Bongo. Boing!

      1. Apple’s in court with Andriod OEMs and so? Apple will continue to challenge those stealing the IP that matters most to them. And your point is what exactly? Large companies have staff who check out other company patents all the time. There’s nothing new here. Are you affraid for Apple? That would be silly.

        1. I’m merely pointing out that their thoroughly patented iPhone has had little success in preventing blatant copycats, namely the Android OS and design of other phones. I’m not afraid for Apple’s success overall, but the pervasiveness of Android can definitely hamper it.

          Apple’s patents on the whole have done a remarkably poor job of defending their extremely valuable IP.

          Take off the rose colored glasses.

          1. When I look back in a decade, I’ll see then how Apple faired legally. One month, one year in the big picture means little. Will Apple lose in court, yes, it’s not a science. In fact legal wranglings don’t always go according to plan. A great oposing Attorney could win on just being sharper, or a judge who has a bias to a jury who is a dumb as a doornob.

            But that’s not what you began with. Your original point was that patents were instruction manuals for copycats. You’ve changed the subject. I’ve answered your original complaint and the legal issue is what it is and has nothing to do with patents being an instruction manual for copy cats.

            Don’t you think that Apple legal or an Apple researcher isn’t assigned to keep track of Google or Samsung or HTC patents? They’re public records. Anyone could spy on anyone’s IP today over the net. There’s nothign new here.

  3. I’m just blown away by the “oleophobic” coating on the current iPhone’s screen. It amazes me. With my old iPod touch, I had to keep a microfiber cloth around to vigorously rub the screen every week or so. Otherwise the screen became a mess of finger-smears. The iPhone just doesn’t pick up finger oil as easily, and when it does, a quick couple of swipes with anything available, like my shirt, gets it shiny-as-new clean. Amazing.

    ——RM

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.