Filing Lead-Up to Full Implementation of the First-To-File AIA Regime

by Dennis Crouch

ScreenShot015

The USPTO has released a chart showing the number of patent applications filed each weekday up through March 19, 2013. These results are roughly parallel, but slighly less amplified to the the 1995 changeover from a patent term of 17-years-from-issuance to 20-years-from-filing.

Patentlyo100_small[1]

42 thoughts on “Filing Lead-Up to Full Implementation of the First-To-File AIA Regime

  1. Unfortunately, the actual scenarios are much worse. To reveal more would only aid the hackers. I recommend that the USPTO look into this.

  2. Neither Leopold my friend.

    I advise you to have someone else, someone willing to open their eyes do any calibrating for you. You still have this tendency to go cross-eyed and react uncontrollably when “anon said” appears.

  3. So we’re clear, was your 1:41 posting a vacuous comment, an example of low-quality blogging, or both?

    I’m just trying to calibrate my blogging quality meter.

  4. My, what a pretty dust cloud you have kicked up.

    Come again, what is the controlling law on the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?

  5. …a new statute.

    …unless of course, the statute was for one of Dorothy’s companions…

    No, not the Tinman.
    No, not the Cowardly Lion.
    No, not Toto.

  6. Sorry. Here’s some additional clues (for one scenario):

    “On Internet” => files placed in Private-Pair IFW –> possibly accessible via alternate hacker path.

    “days later” => Application flagged for national security concern after 2 to 5 days.

    ==> Application was “on Internet” & vulnerable to hacking for 2-5 days until flagged & removed from Private-Pair for “Special Handling”.

    Government agents visit Applicant. Application is not seen again, until it issues 60 years later ;>)

  7. the master of not providing any answers

    Lots of great answers from me in these threads:

    link to patentlyo.com

    link to patentlyo.com

    and many, many others. Here’s one of yours:

    - individual elements – when looked at in isolation – appear to only be things already in the art (a little anti-Diehr sentiment),

    - “determining” is used by itself (never mind what actually this term include – and yes, that still includes a transformation

    - “most of the individual elements of the claim were already well known” – most, but not all? most, but not in the actual combination claimed?

    One wonders how any chemical or biological patent is ever granted these days. After all, the elements have been known since when? the action of molecular bonding has been known since when? Why not just whip oout that magic microscope, zoom into the desired level and exclaim – see, this acts just like it is known to do (at this level).

    Is there any wonder why the good Professor is confused when attempting to teach 101 patent law? It must be confusing to not understand why one’s own viewpoint isn’t law.

    You’re a real piece of work, anon. Do keep it up. You’re the Rev. Phelps of patent t–bxggers.

  8. Complete B$ from the master of not providing any answers and who does not know the difference between fact and spin of that fact.

    It’s more charming when you just [shrug] and stand by, Malcolm.

  9. CAN DANCE MOVES BE PATENTED?

    Interesting question. An Examiner probably wouldn’t allow a patent on a new statue. However, the PTO might allow a patent on a new statue that moves in a previously undisclosed fashion.

    Similarly, the PTO might allow a patent claiming (generally) a computer-implemented method of searching a database of dance moves to identify combinations of body movements that were previously undisclosed, i.e., “available” for patenting.

  10. irrational desire to prove each other wrong

    Uh … you need to read more carefully. anon’s desires have nothing to do with “proving” me wrong and his “desires” are hardly confined to yours truly. He simply wants to smear people who have different “agendas” than his own. That’s why his typical responses to any comment made by numerous people who comment here consists of bizarre innuendo (“fact versus spin” “your shooting arrows at your feet” “you enjoy calvinball spikes” etc etc etc) and nearly every attempt to get him to engage the facts relating to any event that runs counter to his “agenda” (including and especially the Prometheus case) leads to even more smearing, personal attacks and innuendo.

    the two of you

    If I ignore anon, he’ll just go after someone else with the identical behavior pattern. This experiment has been run numerous times.

    who can leave the largest dump in the middle of the garden.

    anon won that contest already. Nobody can compete with sockpuppets on exlax.

  11. if you actually wrote and filed patent applications for real clients, you’d have known that particular fact, without having to find it on the website of a real IP law firm.

    Thank you, Detective Sockpuppet. How could I have forgotten that earth-shattering change that caused some small fraction of applicants to rush a few filings six months ago?

  12. If first-to-file is such a great idea, as were were told by AIPLA et al., then why the big rush to file before it took effect?

  13. The security checks, should be run before one places the app with Nuclear Bomb secrets onto the Internet.

    Just to be clear, you said “days later”, right? Not “18 months later”?

    Also, it’s not within the PTO’s power to prevent secrets from appearing on the internet. The fees are actually much lower if you use your own website instead of the PTO’s.

  14. And if you actually wrote and filed patent applications for real clients, you’d have known that particular fact, without having to find it on the website of a real IP law firm.

  15. Both of you are rather pathetic. Do you really think anyone else cares about your irrational desire to prove each other wrong, on a professional-oriented blog no less? Professor Crouch performs a great service for patent professionals and others interested in patent law, yet the two of you carry on like school kids? It’s like the neighbor who plants a nice garden for all to enjoy, and the two of you are the cranky, immature neighbors who decide to have a contest to see who can leave the largest dump in the middle of the garden.

  16. you still get it wrong

    Really? Like this: in this decision the court unfavorably cites the limitation of Flook found in Diehr that eligibility under § 101 “must be” based on claims “considered as a whole.”

    Or wrong like this: the application teaches you a fact about the world, then the claim attempts to prevent anyone from thinking about that fact in virtually every practical circumstance.

    Or wrong like this: [the] misguided attempt to parse claims into old steps and new steps need not be challenged for the illegality it presents.

    Do let us know, anon.

  17. Good job USPTO EFS team!

    I did not have any performance issues on the EFS front end.

    Time until files appeared in Private-PAIR-IFW seemed to keep increasing through the week (to >12 hrs). Time until security-checks complete, increased dramatically more (into days later).

    One Possible Issue: USPTO may have violated proper security protocols? The security checks, should be run before one places the app with Nuclear Bomb secrets onto the Internet. ;>)

    Although, if they did that, files may not have appeared in PAIR-IFW until days later????

  18. Remind me again: what happened September 13, 2012 to cause the spike?

    Wasn’t intended as a demand to you, Dennis. Just throwing the question out there. But I dug a little deeper with the magic of the Internets: Sept 16 2012 was the date of the change in the declaration requirements.

    link to oblon.com

  19. LOL – and you still get it wrong and continuously self-defeat on that 9-0 baby dance that jig.

    Hey for old time sakes, can you post a link to the USPTO Prometheus Integration Guidelines?

    Atta boy.

  20. It’s interesting that the number of patents issued with filing dates within a couple following June 7, 1995 is detectably lower (half?) compared to the number of patents issued with filing dates immediately preceding (within 3 months) June 7, 1995. Maybe there was a low-level ramp up in the months preceding?

    Remind me again: what happened September 13, 2012 to cause the spike?

  21. Second graph shows the Number of Patents issued, grouped by filing date. The gaps are weekends.

    I get that. Is there data about application filings in Mar-July 1995, as opposed to issued patents?

  22. a post from the very last person in the blogosphere who should be making a comment like that.

    I’ve been writing about the issues raised by Prometheus’ claims even before the original lawsuit was filed. So I’m one of the first people who should be making that comment.

    Do let me know when you understand the facts in that case. They’re important and helpful to understanding why it was a 9-0 decision that will never, ever be overturned (at least not without a compensating change in the way that claims are analyzed under 102/103).

    That laughter you hear

    I don’t hear any laughter. Do you hear laughter, anon?

  23. LOL – again, a post from the very last person in the blogosphere who should be making a comment like that.

    Solid Fe core – super dense. That laughter you hear is not laughter with you Malcolm.

  24. I was worried that the EFS system would go down on March 15, which could have resulted in some malpractice cases for those of us who promised our clients a pre-AIA filing and waited until the last day.

    Kudos to the USPTO for having such a stable system that was able to handle the massive filings that day! (and I’m rarely complimentary towards the USPTO)

  25. Fact v. Spin

    Are you learning to tell which is which, anon?

    Gosh, I hope so.

    Let me know when you figure out the Prometheus case.

  26. One missing piece are all of the foreign and PCT (non-US RO) filings last week. I know for a fact that many foreign applicants chose this route rather than trying to file a U.S. applciation before the deadline. I am sure there will also be a bump in filings this week for those cases where it makes sense to file immediately after the changeover rather than before (or in some cases one filing last week and another filing this week).

  27. I don’t have the actual numbers from the PTO, only the chart.

    Second graph shows the Number of Patents issued, grouped by filing date. The gaps are weekends.

  28. These results are roughly parallel, but slighly less amplified to the the 1995 changeover

    “Roughly parallel” — that’s not suprising.

    Less amplified — also not surprising, given the far less concrete “penalties” in most cases for those who did not rush to meet the deadline.

    Is more quantitation possible, Dennis? I’m not sure what to make of that second graph.

Comments are closed.