As part of its patent quality initiative, the USPTO has offered six proposals for comment and discussion. These will serve as focal-points for the March 25-26 Patent Quality Summit hosted at the USPTO’s Arlington HQ. I will be participating in the Summit that looks to offer a highly-interactive experience where all attendees will have the opportunity to be heard. Via its Federal Register notice, the USPTO is also seeking written comments on the proposals.
- Proposal 1 – Requests for Quality Review: The USPTO proposes that applicants be permitted to request quality review by the OPQA (Office of Patent Quality Assurance) for particular applications. Thus, an applicant who receives a very low quality office action would be able to seek review in this more informal manner without appeal or RCE.
- Proposal 2 – Automated Pre-Examination Search: The USPTO is looking for new tools that would cheaply provide the examiner with a set of starting-points for the examination process. One idea is to automate a pre-examination search. A better approach – in my view – is that the USPTO examiners should rely first on the submitted prior art references as guiding their search — those submitted references will be a better guide to the closest prior art than any automated search. To accomplish this, the USPTO will need to develop IT tools that better allow for internal searching of these submitted documents (including non-patent prior art).
- Proposal 3 – Clarity of Record: The USPTO is looking for input on ways to “enhance the clarity and completeness” of the prosecution record. For me, there should be an increased amount of information from the prosecution record that is available in machine-readable form [i.e., xml]. In many ways, issued patents are still designed around the notion that they are paper documents that can be converted into a machine-readable-form. However, the reality is that patents today are born-digital and with several hundred thousand new patents issuing each year, these patents should be better designed and configured in a way to facilitate automated machine access (rather than PAIR image files). This includes very simple information such as patent expiry date; whether the patent is a post-AIA patent; the patent’s effective filing date and original priority document; reasons for allowance; and a summary of rejections made during prosecution. More detailed information would include the prosecution history documents created in machine-readable form.
- Proposal 4 – Review of and Improvements to Quality Metrics: A major question is the meaning of a “quality patent” and then – how to measure that quality in order to judge both the system and USPTO examiner performance.
- Proposal 5 – Review of Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality: The USPTO is considering the current “compact prosecution model” and is particularly concerned that so many cases result in either an RCE (Request for Continued Examination) or appeal to the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Are the better mechanisms to more quickly and easily get to a resolution of a valid patent being issued or – if not – the application being abandoned.
- Proposal 6: In-Person Interview Capability with All Examiners – The USPTO is considering expanding the locations for conducting in-person interviews – is this a good idea and how might it work?
As is normally the case with problems in general, it is best to start at the beginning:
Define patent “quality.”
Without a logical, objective definition which at least the large majority of stakeholders are willing to agree on (100% agreement on the definition of any word — including this one — is impossible), nothing else matters.
Nothing.
Steve, there are two types of quality —
1. prosecution, and
2. ultimate validity.
Doing 1 to perfection does not ineluctably lead to 2 if the Office is deciding on its own what the law is, rather than taking an issue to the courts. Think Myriad and DNA patents. Think business method and “computer implemented” patents.
On the latter, the Office removed the business method rejection prior to State Street Bank.
The Office obviously became the wh * re of their “constituents” on patentable subject matter. A major reform would to be to get lobbyists out of the patent office.
Says the man who wh*res his own version of the law (anti-software and anti-business method) which has been repeatedly debunked.
Ned here is throwing stones from his own glass tower (and not only missing, but providing the stones for other to lob back at him).
anon, my position on business method patents is clear. They were non statutory, and had been considered such since at least 1908 and Hotel Security.
Bilski did not categorically exclude them. But that was not really the question on the table, was it. The question on the table was whether a business method was a process within the meaning of 101.
Ask the wrong question, get the wrong answer.
Bilski remains, IMHO, one of worst cases in Supreme Court patent law history. 5-4, with Scalia dancing back and forth.
Ned,
You are simply wrong in SO many ways that I have in the past detailed out for you, from the fact that the holding in Bilski addressed “abstract” instead of “business methods,” to your repeated inability to square the direct words of Congress (recognizing business methods), to the fact that Prof. Crouch had a guest author showing that business methods had been granted throughout the entire history of the patent office, to your repeated non-grasping of the controlling law as to the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter – your inability an unwillingness to face my simple Set Theory explanation, to your continued disregard even of Prof. Crouch’s admonition of your improper authority “holding” of a regional court decision (which simply got the law wrong itself).
Yes, your position is “clear” – clearly in error.
3, the new 4, is still not 5.
Really, if you wantto improve quality, the first thing that needs to be done (at least by the examiner – I won’t omment on things that applicant can do to help out) is:
make sure that the best and most relevant prior art gets in the case at the earliest time, idealy the 1st action.
If the best art is in the case at the start the rejections are easier to write & applicant can (hopefully) review the applied and cited prior art and amend the claims to overcome all of that art. Then the next action should be an allowance if there is anything allowable in the case.
Of course that is the idea situation on both sides.
How to get the best art? Simple.
1) The examiner must learn the art (the heavy use of text searching has killed this skill).
2) Understand the invention (NOT just the claim language) before starting the search.
3) Learn how to search properly.
3a) This means leanring what subclasses should be searched & what art can be found where.
3b) Learn how to do a proper text search. Too many examiner think that they can do a google-like search & find the prior art. Problem is, google supplies the synonyms and proximity (to an extent) behind-the-scenes. You put in a bunch of words & it will combine them, use synonyms, sort by relevance, etc. Does all the work for you. EAST requires you to actually think before putting the words in if you want to get meaningful results.
All too many examiners take words from the claims, plug them into EAST & take somethhing that has all the right words. And all too often the art is not the best and sometimes not even relevant.
Of course, if they knew the art & understood the invention, that would be obvious to them.
Fix those problems & the quality will be much better. If there is good art in the rejection, even if not well explained, the applicant can often understand the reasons for the rejection and get something accomplished (NOT ideal, but better than how it is now). If there is not good art in the rejection it doesn’t matter if it is explained well or not. It is still wrong.
Nice contributions Micki (both here and below).
thanks
Disagree entirely.
Good art no need to explain
@STE,
Micki’s proposal assumes perfect examiners that in turn assumes that humans are perfect.
Since neither is true, her proposal is certainly to fail.
Actual practice from time immemorial is a back and forth iterative process between the applicant and the examiner. That comports with reality. Any efforts to end this back and forth, to hamper it, to impeach it, are wrongheaded in the extreme.
Ned, your view here (and lack of on-point responses elsewhere) are simply most odd.
No one anywhere is claiming that the views being expressed require “perfection” of any kind.
Please stop the insertion of this strawman.
anon, the idea that any examiner can completely understand the invention, or even get close, before the first action and the first response is almost preposterous.
This is why compact prosecution does not work in point of fact.
Ned,
I think that a subtle point is lost on you.
While I agree that interaction can be valuable to the examiner’s understanding, the fact remains that EVERYTHING the examiner EVER needs must be present at filing – by law appears not to register with you.
Further, whether or not compact prosecution is the “best” way can be – and should be – separated from the notion that an applicant has paid a fixed price for a GIVEN result of a properly (whatever internal-mechanism driven manner) examined application that at the end of the day results in a patent or not.
You should realize too that “compact prosecution” does not – and never has – meant “prosecution complete in a single pass with NO interaction or feedback.”
As with your imputed “requirement” of perfection, you appear to continue to inject strawmen into the discussion. As I asked previously, please stop this and point to actual things in my comments that you wish to take exception to.
“SWhile I agree that interaction can be valuable to the examiner’s understanding, the fact remains that EVERYTHING the examiner EVER needs must be present at filing – by law appears not to register with you.”
And while that means a lot to a person with OCPD it doesn’t mean quite as much to other people who live in the real world.
Re posted at the top because FAR too many people are making the mistake of assuming that “time for the examiner” is anything but an internal contrivance:
To the contrary Eoina, examination and prosecution has always been about the BEST job, and the “time allotted” aspect is an artificial one, created solely within the Office for Office managerial control.
The issue is – and will always be – just how “best” is defined. It is well known that “best” will not – and cannot – be “perfect.” It is completely illusory to even entertain such a notion. Once it is understood that best won’t be perfect, figuring out what best should be can be less-emotionally discussed.
Further, Applicants pay for a completed quality examination and really don’t care – nor should they have to – how the Office “divies up” time allotments. The Office is NOT run on a Billable Hour model, but rather is run on a flat rate model. It is entirely an Office decision to treat every application (internally, as externally there are things like extra claim fees) as a “same-size” widget. I would be perfectly happy with (and have proposed many times) a spectrum of assessment of an application based on such things as complexity or how crowded an art field is, to NOT have a “single widget size” mentality. But you cannot say things like “you get what you pay for” and tie that to time when THAT is simply NOT what was paid for.
Anon, stop it.
Any system for quality examination must deal with real people known as examiners. They are not perfect automatons. They are not slaves. They people.
Incentives/disincentives to do or not do a particular task must be considered in designing a better system.
“Any system for quality examination must deal with real people known as examiners. They are not perfect automatons. They are not slaves. They people.”
You can try to tell him that all day long but he sees the PTO as a magical box (with functionalities lol). You can try to tell him he doesn’t have the slightest clue about that which he is speaking, not in the slightest, but he’ll just blather on and on.
Not sure which point you want me to “stop,” Ned – do you think that I have misspoken? Please share which point of mine that you would like to discuss.
Thanks.
Re: “the mistake of assuming that “time for the examiner” is anything but an internal contrivance.”
Incredible, since everyone knows patent examiners have significant time restraints for searches and office actions per application imposed by specific production quotas which control pay and promotions. [About as realistic as saying a law firm associate working on a now-typical capped-fee patent application has unlimited billing time to work on it.]
Examiners also often have to make first action searches and actions on patent claims which are written ridiculously broadly [because of no pre-filing consideration of any prior art] and may not even contain claim limitations that would point out what might actually be novel features.
Paul,
Don’t be facile.
Clearly my post does not seek to deny the existence of time constraints for examiners, and your post comment on “as realistic as” absolutely misses the point.
Or better, it’s as if you think that a client has every right and even duty to be concerned with the inner workings of a law firm from which the client has contracted a capped-fee patent application.
The client does not – and should not – be dragged into the inner workings of the firm.
The very point that examiners are forced to work to a quota as an internal mechanism and that is ALLOWED to impact a “flat-fee” style end product paid for is what SHOULD alarm you.
Further, your tone of “Examiners often have to” is very much part of the problem, sounding as it does in excusing poor performance that is simply NOT excusable – no matter what the input.
What I find “incredible” is your penchant for taking anti-patent positions in te clothe of an advocate.
Quality prosecution takes time. So let’s stop wasting it on “compact prosecution” that more or less guarantees that examiners waste theirs by trying to cover every possible issue when a few likely will be dispositive. For starters, limit examination to the independent claims. If agreement cannot be reached on these, why bother having the examiner spending time on the dependent claims? This one step would free up lots of examiner time to do a better job on the independent claims, and provide the applicant with a strong incentive to better focus what he is actually trying to claim in the independent claims.
It would also be useful in some arts to require applicants to provide a listing of what every reference numeral in the figures refers to.
Why bother spending time on the dependent claims?
Because if dependent claims are found to be allowable that can make any disagreement on the independent claims moot. The applicant might amend the independent claims to include the dependent claim.
Yes, but that still chews up time that might otherwise be better spent examining the independent claims. Maybe I’m right, or maybe the status quo is better. Let’s run have the PTO run experiment and find out. Pick some group, or subset of an art, and do it one way for one set of cases and the other way for a similar set of cases and see how things work out in practice
.
ALL claims have to be examine Egon – you are attempting to make a distinction that has no difference.
anon, you are coming off as a mind-numbed robot chanting gospel, unable to perceive reality clearly, unwilling to listen or to change.
Spengler has a great idea here to increase efficiency. I fully endorse it.
Ned, not sure here either what is your issue.
Are you saying that not all claims must be examined prior to grant?
I can already tell you how things would work out in practice.
And no, anon, all claims do not have to be “examined” aka have a rejection sent for them or be indicated as allowable. That’s just office policy. The PTO can stop sending rejections for depending claims that depend from a rejected base claim anytime they decide to. In fact, some primaries already do it and then they dredge up art if there is any if the applicant insists they may want those claims. And this used to be more kosher than it is today from what people say. There is nothing to stop the PTO from doing that and instead having the examiners concentrate on just “rejecting” the independent claims if they have to send an action, but focusing the actual search on “the invention” and trying to get the applicant to amend into something the office finds allowable. It may in fact prove to be much much better as a matter of procedure.
Words of wisdom.
Except not – for obvious reasons.
“It would also be useful in some arts to require applicants to provide a listing of what every reference numeral in the figures refers to.”
How would that improve “patent quality” or “examination quality” or whatever it is the PTO is looking to improve the quality of?
“So let’s stop wasting it on “compact prosecution” that more or less guarantees that examiners waste theirs by trying to cover every possible issue when a few likely will be dispositive.”
Compact prosecution already allows for that. In fact it is encouraged. Find those issues that are likely to be dispositive, get the appropriate amendment made, and it’s done.
What you’re talking about is going on the wild goose chase for depending claims with little to no chance of being acceptable to the applicant and all the other nonsense that takes forever. It’s old people that insist on dealing with all that crp and then “sending an action”.
I would like to see the USPTO find a way to enforce the interview summary requirements–both from the examiner and the applicant. No applicant should be permitted to submit an interview summary which simply states “the claims and the prior art were discussed.” Too burdensome? Fine. Then record all interviews and make the recording part of the file history.
And lookey there; the PTO is thinking along similar lines. From their “brainstorming” ideas on improving the clarity of the record:
“What are the advantages and disadvantages of making the substance of interviews more extensive on the record? For example, should applicant-examiner interviews be recorded and/or transcribed and, if so, how should the cost of recordation and/or transcription be recovered by the Office?”
But I don’t think they necessarily need to expand the current rule to require a more extensive interview summary. Rather, they need to enforce the rule they currently have with respect to interview summaries. Also, would recording every interview really be all that expensive to implement?
And while I don’t know what, if anything, the PTO might be thinking with respect to IDS’s, I hope and pray that they are not contemplating bringing back the old requirement of including relevancy statements for every reference submitted. The only people that helped were accused infringers looking for litigation fodder.
The interviews are like pre litigation negotiations. They shouldn’t be recorded. It would make everyone too uptight.
You are trying to tighten the wrong screw. The right screw is the allowance where if you want more, then the examiner should put the more in here.
Tinkering ….
“interviews are like pre litigation negotiations.”
The entire application and examination process should be so viewed.
Clients should be aware that enforcement should be contemplated from the very start.
(and this is NOT a “bad thing”)
How to raise Quality in a virtuous circle? ? By Applicant self-interest. How at the EPO? Paradoxically, by a bizarre historical accident, namely the separation of i) search and ii) examination on the merits. You see, because of this, searching happens just once in the lifetime of every EPO patent application, at the outset, (so it has to be good).
The old criticisms of this system, that it is inefficient because the searcher and the examiner are different, has been eliminated by the EPO’s BEST/EESR process, in which a) the search report comes with an opinion on patentability attached to it, b) examination then takes place only after Applicant subsequently i) pays the exam fee and ii) presents claims calculated to overcome all the patentability issues raised in the EESR, and c) the substantive examiner is the search examiner .
But perhaps the biggest driver of quality is Rule 137 EPC, under which the consent of the Examining Division is needed before any round of amendment subsequent to the first is admitted to the prosecution file and ii) amending to unsearched matter is not allowed. Consequences: i) your as filed dependent claims need to be good and ii) your amendment response to the EESR has to be good. Applicant self-interest drives Applicants towards getting their cases “right first time”.
Of course, when these Rules are firmly enforced, Applicant must be permitted to file continuation (in the EPO “divisional”) applications. And why not? The more aplications the merrier, I say.
None of this is transferrable to the USPTO, I suppose.
While I am not opposed to secondary searches per se, the mindset of that first search good enough to be sufficient SHOULD be in play for the States as well. Perhaps for a different reason than the one advanced by MaxDrei, but here (too), the applicant is ALREADY constrained at the onset by the prohibition of entering new matter into the record. Everything that can EVER come from the applicant is already there on Day 1 for the examiner.
So as an Examiner, I need to search the entire specification, rather than the claims, which the Applicant feels define the invention?
Seems the problem there is the Applicant. If the Applicant wants to move the goal posts, then the Examiner should get a new search and appropriate time/credit for the additional work.
Otherwise, Examiners would spend an inordinate amount of wasted time on those applications that are far too long and recite a mish-mash of apparently randomly combined elements, and don’t clearly say which Applicant believes is the invention.
Anony, agreed.
The way it works in practice is well known; and actually practice and the ideal of compact prosecution are substantially different.
IMHO, the examiner should review the claims against the drawings to get a gist of what is being claimed, apply to the claim terms a rough construction that one of ordinary skill would apply to them, conduct a search and issue a FAOM.
Next, the applicant would clarify/limit the claims as appropriate.
If, in the opinion of the examiner, this clarification would require an additional search, he should do it, and issue a second non final.
David Stein would extend this even further by allowing the applicant to buy additional searches and additional non finals. (I thought RCEs were supposed be exactly this. Something got lost along the line about the purposes of RCEs.)
Obviously, at some point, the examiner should have the discretion to call a halt and issue a final.
In all this, the examiner needs to be given some credit for each search/action on the merits.
There is simply NO viable shortcut from what has to be done: read, understand, and examine the entire application.
Period.
A prior art search based on claim terms has disadvantages. Examiners who focus on searching claim terms run the risk to end up with poor search results, that they can only use to make a weak obviousness rejection showing little more than none of the claim element is novel in itself. Very often, the search results relied upon are so poor that the Examiners may need the rescue of an very broad reading of the claims that fits poorly with the description.
The solution to the problem you are mentioning is a rejection under 112. Under the written description requirement, the inventor should demonstrate that she/he was in possession of the invention.
I think a better enforcement of 101 utility requirement and 112(a) are key to patent quality. For example, I like the kind of abstract you see on Japanese patents, where the problem to be solved is spelled out. I also would like to see more objective statements about the efficacy of the invention (something like the invention can be used to achieve that level of performance). You see that in pharma and/or materials, but too little of it in the mechanical arts.
“Examiners may need the rescue of an very broad reading of the claims that fits poorly with the description.”
That’s not a rescue – that’s an abuse of process.
“So as an Examiner, I need to search the entire specification, rather than the claims, which the Applicant feels define the invention?”
Uh, yeah. See MPEP 904+.
Thank you AAA JJ, I was beginning to think that no one here knew the first thing about examination.
What can you expect from us B-teamers? If you treat us like we’re stpuid, what motivation do we have to exceed your expectations?
Regardless of B-teamers or “stpuid,” I expect you to know and to do your job.
Else wise I expect you to be f1red.
That’s simple enough that you should be able to understand no matter what your condition is.
“Else wise I expect you to be f1red.”
I think you mean “promoted”.
You seriously don’t understand that there is nobody policing all these things that you’re an al about. And there never will be without major changes that will take years.
“What can you expect from us B-teamers? If you treat us like we’re stpuid, what motivation do we have to exceed your expectations?”
See what goes on anon? This times 9000 people (literally) is what is plaguing change happening. There is no motivation for them to kill themselves for your benefit. That’s because, even in the best of times, under ideal circumstances, when the stars align and you are super skilled, compact prosecution barely makes the production numbers. Of course, sending sht out makes the production numbers, and makes for hugely better work/life and will likely get you a bonus or promotions.
Way too funny.
So this is how the Black Widow felt when Loki spilled the beans.
This isn’t exactly me “spilling beans”. I’ve been telling you this for dam near forever now.
Historical accidents at times seem to cause a good outcome.
The PTO would be wise to look to Europe for some guidance here.
As I pointed out to MaxDrei, Day 1 has everything ever possible already there before the examiner.
Is not the rate at which an examiner’s claim rejection are highly sustained or highly reversed by the Board a highly objective quality criteria which the PTO should be using? Is it?
Also, is there any quality review of examiners who are statistically shown to always allow applications [or enter new grounds of rejection] after an appeal brief is filed, rather than filing an examiner’s answer?
Actually, reverse/sustain rate at the board isn’t a good indicator for various reasons.
Among them:
1) Cases going to the board are cherry picked a few times over – by the applicant, examiner, spe, appeal conference members. Each with their own biases.
Applicant’s (resumably) won’t appeal something that they think they are definately going to lose. So “good” or even close rejections (from the applicant POV) probably are not appealed very often.
Many examiner’s don’t want to reopen, so are likely to want to go to the board (or allow) & get the count rather than doing a new action (with no count) if they think that they have a fair (or even small) chance at winning.
Then again, there are other examiners that will only go to appeal if they think that they are 100% right. They would rather reopen (or allow) than maybe lose at the board.
Some spes & appeal conf. people go into conferences with the mindset that the applicant is right without even looking at the merits. Probably because the spes get rated on the % of cases that are reveresed at the board. Better to reopen (or allow a less than rock-solid rejection) than get a reversal.
2) The board is less then dependable to make the correct, or even consistent, decision. I have literally (and I use that term correctly) seen 2 cases with almost identical claims and the exact rejections (112/1, prior art & ODP) and identical responses by applicant and the exact same board panel get completely opposite decisions on the 112/1 & prior art rejections. Within a couple weeks of one another! The board “is like a box of chocolates”.
3) And then there is the relatively small # of appeals any given examiner gets in a given FY as well as the multi-year delay in getting a decision so the results are not an indicator of current work but that of 2-3 years prior.
So, no, appeal decisions is not a good indicator of quality.
Now, if you want to use things like 2nd action non-final, reopenings after final or appeal, # of actions/disposal, that would be a different story. These are better indicators of the overall quality. And I know that there has been an emphasis on improving these metrics the last few years.
I think that using the prior art submitted by the applicant as a guide to how and where the Examiner’s should search, is mostly a waste of time. When I was an examiner, the prior art that I saw submitted by the Applicants was typically so far removed from the claimed invention, they were rarely if ever useful for anything, and I am reasonably sure that my fellow examiners at the time felt the same (but of course I never did any statistical in depth study of the usefulness – to the Examiner – of prior art submitted by the Applicants).
Much has changed since I was an examiner, but I would be interested as to what current examiners think of using prior art submitted by the applicant as a guide to their search.
Note that the typical Examiner searches the same art or the same relatively few areas of art nearly every day. In contrast, the typical patent searcher, from outside of the US Patent and Trademark Office, searches a completely new or at least somewhat new technology nearly every search. As a consequence the Examiner is highly specialized in his/her art area(s), whereas the outside searcher is at best a generalist (whom may have little understanding of the technologies they search), which calls into question the extent to which the outside searcher’s search can be a meaningful guide to the Examiner in doing his/her search.
I think that if Examiners were more willing to negotiate after a final rejection, without requiring filing an RCE, that could bring a lot of applications to issue faster. I know that much has been done to encourage Examiners to talk to applicants, but I think more can be done. Also, some examiner’s are willing to talk, but not truly negotiate and reconsider their positions as a result of an interview.
“I think that if Examiners were more willing to negotiate after a final rejection, without requiring filing an RCE, that could bring a lot of applications to issue faster.”
Certainly. But it’s all about incentives.
Why would an examiner want to negotiate an allowance after-final without an RCE filing (presuming the claims are properly rejected on the merits)? What is the trade-off for those two lost counts?
“Much has changed since I was an examiner, but I would be interested as to what current examiners think of using prior art submitted by the applicant as a guide to their search.”
You are entirely correct. Though sometimes the art in the IDS is close to the claims, and narrowly drafted around (sometimes still in 103 range tho) it is rarely classified into the proper classification for the case. Though it does happen on occasion.
You have to realize that there are two “types” of IDS’s. One is where the prior art is given to the patent attorney by the inventor, while the other consists of the results of a patentability search. I’ve had both sorts of clients, that is, there is the sort that wants a patentability search done before filing any application, and then there is the sort that never does a patentability search because they are one of the leaders in the applicable technology.
And not all patentability searches are equal. I could do a decent search online, but when possible, I preferred to use a search firm that would speak to an examiner in the applicable art to make sure they were on the right track. And during all my years of experience, the examiner would invariably find some overlooked prior art upon which to base a rejection.
“I think that if Examiners were more willing to negotiate after a final rejection, without requiring filing an RCE, that could bring a lot of applications to issue faster. ”
I think that Examiner’s are usually over their head. After doing the work they’ve done to generate an Office Action, they are 70 percent sure that their position is correct. they understand about 70% of the application and about 62% of the cited documents and 54% of the claim language in front of them. Then they forget all they struggled to understand about the case and move on to the next dozen. Then they get a call asking for an interview.
The little bit of time they get to prepare for the interview is not sufficient to allow them to be confident enough to agree to anything…and so, they don’t.
Every time USPTO does a little rulemaking to improve the quality of data in its systems, the old school patent echo chamber of outside lobbists throw a fit.
Attributable ownership updates every now and then – destroys their member’s competitive posture in the marketplace.
Putting the contact information on the fact of the patent application – the members of the patent bar complain because they are getting “spammed” (welcome to the club boys.)
Allow inventors, the people who probably understand what is novel and what is prior art, to read patents and run the risk that 10 years from now the patent owner will be accused of inequitable contact. With hundreds of thousands of pieces of NPL published every year, do you really think an inventor is capable of “hiding” a piece of prior art?
If you want a fully digital patent prosecution pathway, let’s add some serious quality to patent data so the market for patented inventions becomes more transparent.
Arleen,
May I remind you that the Quid Pro Quo – and the “market” is the idea am patent itself and not the owner.
Check thus high quality patent, another dozen + American companies sued on 3/10/15, spending lord only knows how much to fend it off, raising costs on all of us.
US 7,356,606
Behold the innovation. Really.
Anyone who can’t call this out as simple racketeering is a deluded ideologue.
^^^ and today’s “culture” lesson of “whine about a random software patent unrelated to the actual post” courtesy of…
Here’s claim 1
1. A method of conducting commerce with a server over the Internet comprising:
receiving a request for a web page from a consumer;
transmitting the web page over the Internet from the server to the consumer;
prompting for information from the consumer through the web page;
assigning variables with variable names to the information;
incorporating XML path information into the variable names;
submitting the variables to the server;
reading the information from the variables;
placing the information in an XML type format based on the XML path information; and
creating another web page for the consumer.
That seems very specific to me and easily worked around. Perhaps I’m mistaken.
I read your post as being sarcastic, so it seems you think it not an innovation worthy of protection.
Yet you say there are a dozen companies willing to do battle in court over it rather than … i donno… NOT assign variables with variable names to the information or NOT incorporate XML path information.
So, maybe it was innovative back in the spring of 2004 after all.
Id likely be opposed to a patent on XML. But a patent on the most obvious, natural use- the very purpose- of XML?
Yea Les, that’s real innovation alright. Lets check back in four years on this litigation, shall we? I think I know already what we will find.
-tons of wasted money and a dead patent.
While I am skeptical that incorporating XML path information into variable names as part of a method of conducting commerce was the very purpose of XML, I will accept that assertion for discussion purposes.
I would also note that 97.43 percent of all inventions are made of components used for their very purpose.
Each component in a telephone, for example, could be described as being used for its very purpose. Switches switch, relays relay, springs spring. Speakers speak, microphones mic…
One patent per invention. Speakers speaking jazz don’t get another patent for speaking country & western.