How do you decide how to categorize a new idea? Patent? Present at a Conference? or Publish in a Journal? I came across a patent that proposes an idea for a device, and in the background section of the patent, other similar devices that were published in conferences (not even journals) were cited. Seriously nothing unique about the proposed design - not a jaw-dropping.

So consider the following scenario. You are sitting on a front porch, and you come up with an idea.

How do you know if it is worth to be filed as a patent, submitted to a journal, or presented at a conference?

Also, I came across a number of patents, and they were merely theoretical, without proving if the concept works flawlessly. So, how does this concept convince the people in the patent office? I’d like to know what elements make a patent too.
How do you know if it is worth to be filed as a patent, submitted to a journal, or presented at a conference?


To commercialise, file a patent. To disseminate, publish a journal article or a conference paper.* 

* Distinctions between journal/conference publication is dealt with elsewhere and, given the context, is seemingly out of scope.


  [Many patent ideas] were merely theoretical, without proving if the concept works flawlessly. So, how does this concept convince the people in the patent office? 


US patent law demands usefulness 

...an invention is "useful" if it...is capable of use...the doctrine prevents the
patenting of fantastic or hypothetical devices...


and European patent law demands industrial application

...a patent can only be granted...for an invention which can be made... 


These requirements should prevent granting patents for theoretical ideas.