For the past 15 years, the US patent classification system has fallen on hard times as more searchers move toward non-structured “Google style” searching. Now, however, a global cooperative led by the EPO and USPTO are moving forward with a the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) that offers some promise both for better classification and for more cross-border standardization.
In turn, Google has released a new version of its patent search capabilities — by indexing both its patent documents and its non-patent “Google Scholar” documents according to CPC standards.
For Google, this is not just about their core business of improving search. Indeed, Google is a major player in the U.S. patent system, both as a patent owner and as a defendant in patent infringement lawsuits. In a blog post, Google’s Allen Lo (Deputy GC for patents) and Ian Wetherbee (Google Patents developer) rightly argue that better search leads to better patents. It will be interesting to see whether the improved Google Search makes an impact.
Links:
[…] with ill-gotten settlement money.” There are many articles about it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. In the form of sourse code, not just publications, it ought to be possible to demonstrate […]
Any mechanical examiner will tell you that cpc is crap. Any other examiner will tell you that uspc was crap. This article is about 2 years late. When the pto first announced that we were switching to cpc, the first question from the examining corps was when and how will we reorg the tc’s and art units to actually use it. Upper management continues to avoid the question. There is no plan to ever consider dropping uspc for classifying applications. Cpc has only been used to destroy examiners ability to search effectively in their area of expertise. I blame Focarino.
“Upper management continues to avoid the question.”
That is part of transition planning.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Seems like a simple solution would be to cross reference the two systems so that searching in one optionally automatically searches in the corresponding class/subclass of the other.
Once that is done, stop indexing new applications in the USPC.
But, I expect, this probably is already done, save for the dropping part.
They made the “Y” classes that continue to be updated and reclassified all the old patents in them for mechanical and some of the old physics patents. It’s just a matter of integrating then with the A classes.
Don’t changes to cpc have to be done through EPO?
Your question would have been addressed in the transition plan.
I thought that you thought that the plan was complete?
What was that assertion, Mr. “Backpeddlelar”…?
Rhetorical question zzzz. They have to be done with EPO bc it’s a joint venture.
Also they have been updating y classes into a classes although slowly.
You’re not only an arsehole, but a dumbarse. Don’t bother replying to my posts because I’m not going to waste my time with you.
cat, the way to deal with a troll is to ignore them.
…with or through…?
my back peddling doush
As for Ned, you don’t respond to the dialogue points because you cannot respond – the “Tr011” thingie f001s no one.
[…] last of those categories: It's launching a …Google strengthens its patent searchThe HillCPC and Google Search | Patently-OPatently-OGoogle Wants to Help Companies Knock Out Lousy Patents for FreeBloombergSearch Engine […]
For anyone still trying to partially base a “non analogous art” argument against 103 cited art based on that art not being in the same search class as the application, will not both the change in classifications, and the change in the way searching is now done, drive in the KSR coffin nail to “non analogous art” arguments even further?
For anyone still trying to partially base a “non analogous art” argument against 103 cited art based on that art not being in the same search class as the application…
Is anyone actually still making that argument? That seems really silly to me. If your claim is to an airplane wing and the cited details in the reference are describing a coat hanger, then just say so. Who cares about some arbitrary, semi-random classification?
The fact that it seems “really silly to you,” most likely means that you are missing a critical thought.
Think about this:
The “world” of prior art for 102 rejections is the entire world.
The “world” or prior art for 103 rejections is a limited subset of the 102 art world.
Let me know when you realize that one of the parameters of determining this subset has a link to what you think is “silly.”
Thanks.
(ps – instead of spending your time making inane comments that simply miss the point of my posts, you should spend your time sharpening your critical thinking skills. Just a thought)
The “world” of prior art for 102 rejections is the entire world.
The “world” or prior art for 103 rejections is a limited subset of the 102 art world.
Where does Section 103 say that, Mr. Principles?
The “world” or prior art for 103 rejections is a limited subset of the 102 art world.
Sure, fine. But as KSR made quite clear, the limits on that subset are adduced through rational thought processes, rather than on arbitrary classifications and formulaic rules.
So, you’re still making “non-analogous prior art” arguments? Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.
You’re not? Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.
Take a look at the recent PTAB panel decision in 12/716,033 (not my case).
That the prior art relied upon in an obviousness rejection be pertinent, i.e. analogous, is still a requirement of the law. KSR didn’t change that. If you have that argument but you don’t make it because, “That’ll never work” then it’s your loss. Or your clients.
Whatever. Keep on doing what you’re doing. And posting condescending snark here. The rest of us will make the arguments the facts and the law provide us. And win.
That the prior art relied upon in an obviousness rejection be pertinent, i.e. analogous, is still a requirement of the law. KSR didn’t change that.
I didn’t say that it did. All I’m saying is that throwing around terms like “non-analogous prior art” might impress the client, but isn’t terribly effective, notwithstanding your PTAB case. (Incidentally, I think the panel got the non-analogous art issue wrong, for the reasons the examiner tried, but failed, to articulate – the claims’ reference to a “multi-layer packaging film” in the preamble is a non-limiting statement of intended use.) And relying on different classifications for that argument, which is what we’re actually talking about here, is really weak.
“…but isn’t terribly effective, notwithstanding your PTAB case.”
It’s effective if you argue it correctly. Which the appellant in the case I mentioned did.
I agree that if you’re argument is, “It’s not analogous because our application is classified in ABC/DEF and the prior art reference is classified in UVW/XYZ” then it’s not effective. That is, as you said, really weak.
“Incidentally, I think the panel got the non-analogous art issue wrong…”
No they didn’t. If there was a way to do a backwards hand stand to affirm the examiner, the panel would have found it. That they didn’t is all you need to know.
If there was a way to do a backwards hand stand to affirm the examiner, the panel would have found it. That they didn’t is all you need to know.
Haha! I agree with you that this is the right place to start the analysis! In this case, though, the Board sustained the separate anticipation rejections of two of the three claims at issue, so perhaps they were just trying to look more judicial…
Here’s the claim:
A composite for use on a product side of a multi-layer packaging film, said composite comprising a bio-based layer selected from PLA, wherein said PLA has a glass transition temperature and is insoluble in water at temperatures below said glass transition temperature, PHA, and mixtures thereof and an adhesion layer having a
metal, metal oxide, metalloid oxide, or combinations thereof deposited on said adhesion layer, wherein said adhesion layer comprises polyamides or PGA.
Maybe you see it, but I don’t see any link between the preamble’s statement of intended use, “for use on a product side of a multi-layer packaging film,” and the rest of the claim. He didn’t claim the multi-layer packaging, or the film, he only claimed the “composite.” Accordingly, the examiner was correct that he need only show that the combination of elements after the preamble were obvious. Not surprisingly, he couldn’t even do that, which the PTAB also admitted.
It appears that the examiner actually recognized that it would be ridiculous to combine the reference used in the 103 rejection with a reference that actually deals with a multi-layer packaging film, which is why he relied on a single-reference obviousness rejection, instead of combining the 103 reference with his 102 reference.
Random Guy: A new use of a known process has to be a known process in a different context to achieve a different result. Otherwise you’d have a situation where you could patent a flashlight, and you can patent a process of illumination, and then you could re-patent the illumination process whenever you shine it on something new.
Just a reminder to everyone: turning this “otherwise” situation into reality is exactly what the patent maximalists live and breathe for. It’s exactly why the Supreme Court had to step in and hammer Prometheus and Alice into the ground. And they’re going to keep stepping in until the nonsense stops.
Except not – leave out the equivalent here of the strawman “mere aggregation” and both you and Random are left blowing smoke.
the equivalent here of the strawman “mere aggregation”
Nobody knows what you’re talking about.
Yes, that is a serious problem for you. And it’s been a problem for many years.
Ah yes, the Vinnie Barbarino meme response.
A claim of:
A bicycle,
A goldfish in a blue bowl,
A screwdriver, and
A fungus that is scraped from the toe of a newt.
Tell me why that claim does not work.
Note that there is no need for any [thought], new, old, or indifferent.
Try not to hurt yourself.
Tell me why that claim does not work.
Because newts’ toes are inherently fungus-resistant?
Practicing being an arse and missing the point is NOT something that you should be wanting to do.
Lighten up, Francis.
ROFLPIMP
Google should realize if you’re typing a mix of numbers and letters you’re likely going to use the keyboard forward slash. Keyboard forward slash goes to a new CPC entry, while numpad slash produces the desired result, i.e. a forward slash.
So who gets to examine the patent on a computerized method of identifying available real estate? The sooper dooper techno “computer” examiner? Or the examiner with expertise in real property sales?
Who gets to examine the patent on a computerized method of presenting bank account information on a display? The expert in display technology? The expert in computers? Or the examiner with a background in finance?
Who gets to examine the patent on a computerized method of selecting “personalized” movies for later viewing? The soooper dooper computer techno expert? Or the Examiner with expertise in cinema?
Who gets to examine the patent on a computerized method of identifying the most successful potential dinner date? The sooper dooper computer techno expert? Or the Examiner with the sociology background?
Who gets to examine the patent on a computerized method of upselling cereal to mothers of five year olds? The sooper dooper computer techno expert? Or the Examiner who raised five kids?
Bottom line: the searching is important but it’s more important to use your effing brain instead of pretending that you were born yesterday (like half the Examiners and 90% of the computer-implementer habitually do).
Yes all these are all so easy. We are still waiting for you to draft claims for the social networking app that will be used in 5 years from now. Oh wait…without hindsight your superpowers fail you.
If time and money were no objects, I don’t think it would be that hard to do so.
Of course, the strategy isn’t filing one application. It would be obtaining hundreds, either by filing them or buying them.
And it’s not “drafting claims for the next social media app.” It’s getting multiple patents with multiple claims that the next social media app could be argued to be infringing. A slight but subtle difference.
Getting a patent that reads on the next big app is similar to science fiction writers predicting the future; most of the predictions may be wrong yet some people praise them as geniuses and visionaries for the few they get right.
MM, you do know how to illustrate a point.
When the the Federal Circuit/USPTO began recognizing patentable novelty in non technical subject matter, it made a mockery of the patent system.
A machine that processes information. Machines that are changing the way humans work. Not technical?
Huh?
It’s pretty easy for most people to understand the difference between a patent claim, on one hand, and an actual device falling within the scope of that claim.
And then there’s NWPA.
You want to take a shot at the legal difference, Malcolm?
Feel free to use those short declarative sentences that you are always on about (just try to be inte11ectually honest).
You want to take a shot at the legal difference
Try to believe it, folks.
Please put your hat back on that point, Malcolm.
Thanks.
“So who gets to…”
Translation: “Waaaah, this is toooooo hard.”
That was the same C R P excuse the government tried o use – in the 1960’s.
It was C R P for legal logic back then.
It still is C R P for legal logic now, almost 50 years later.
Talk about a lack of growing up….
Classification is not solely about finding appropriate prior art. It is also a way to get an application to the most qualified individuals to examine it. The PTO remains organized based on the USPC. For better or worse, examiners owned the class(es) in which they worked. Good examiners kept on top of new patents issued in their class(es) and would become irate at those improperly issuing/cross referencing inappropriate patents in their class(es).
Hopefully, the PTO moves to reorganize its art units based on the CPC. It will require time, money, and much grief. But, if everyone owns something, then no one really owns it…..and, as “Alex” says in 7…it will be rubbish.
Until the PTO comes to its senses and stops handing out patents on information processing logic, they’d better create some new classes and hire some Examiners with non-technical experience. A bunch of Ph.D.s with backgrounds in logic and pure math would be a great place to start.
The requirement for a technical background is rather silly as long as the system remains stuck in the information and info processing swamp where it’s been dog paddling for the past 15 years.
Still waiting for your non-circular, non-FAIL definition of technological….
Windmills Ho!
Still waiting for your non-circular, non-FAIL definition of technological….
Oh lookie! Greg A’s boot polisher thinks it’s impossible to define the term “technological” in a non-circular way.
I tell you what, “anon”: define “FAIL” for everyone and I’ll give you one of several non-circular definitions. I’ve given definitions before (“technological” included) but somehow you seem to have forgotten that.
Tune in next time when “anon” asks me to explain why all claims in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] are ineligible for the thousandth time, moments after he accuses me of never having done so.
Do me a favor and ask your bff Greg to show up here on a regular basis so I can explain Prometheus v. Mayo again. I think he’s been giving Guttag the brown acid again.
More (typical) dissembling.
I never said impossible, nor have I have indicated so. I have pointed out that YOU have never done so.
That is FAIL.
See – nice short declarative sentences too.
As to your pet theory – more FAIL from you as your “version” of “explain” just does not cut it or get you past the b@nal reduction to the no mere aggregation aspect that is naturally in the claims as a whole doctrine.
But we both know that all you are doing is so your same old short-script game of spin-spin-spin.
Yay.
To be honest, CPC still is rubbish. It’s main advantage is that it doesn’t have decades of patents thrown into classes by examiners who were rushing out an allowance/didn’t know or care of as classification was correct.
In 10 years this will mostly be lost and we need a new system.
What would you do to improve the searches? How about separate the search from the prosecution with the examiner still having the option of searching?
This would be nice if there were good searchers, but most likely what would happen is the examiner would get a search, and end up still doing their own search and taking just as long. So costs would go up, and no change on quality.
Well, now that I’m thinking about it, maybe have teams of examiners. Have 2 examiners search 3 or 4 cases, meet at the end of the week, compare references, and then each writes up 2 of the cases based on the combined best art found. I don’t know, just thinking on the keyboard . . .
but most likely what would happen is the examiner would get a search, and end up still doing their own search and taking just as long
In today’s parlance, we call this a PCT application.
Or any application – even US ones (when one compares what examiners do with applicant supplied art on IDS’s – Prof. Crouch ran a pretty picture – that actually conveyed information – on that awhile back).
CPC is great for a lot of areas.
Re: classifying, doing it in triplicate independently would be a much needed improvement.
CPC is absolutely rubbish, I agree. But I disagree with your point about any “advantage” with CPC. In my art, US patents have been incredibly inconsistently placed in random locations throughout the CPC schedule. The USPC system (in my art anyway) had very consistent spots where particular kinds of devices could reliably be placed and found. In cpc, similar devices are scattered around completely randomly. I was told the Europeans classified the US patents into CPC (don’t know if its true). I’m sure whoever did it either had no time to do it right or did not give a rat’s ass about where things were classified.
I completely agree that the single easiest way to vastly improve prosecution is to improve search.
If a patent claim is invalidated in a post-grant proceeding with a different reference than was applied in prosecution, then the PTO failed.
In reality, most patent attorneys want to get their clients claims that define over the cited art even if the examiner doesn’t know how to reject the claims with the art. Think about that. All those people trying to shift the burden from the PTO to the applicant.
Reality. Please try to live in the real world and not the propaganda world of the anti-patent big international corporations.
And think about it too:
Case 1: patent granted with references A, B, C
Case 2: invalidated in post-grant review with reference D
Case 3: invalidated in post-grant review with references A, B, C
I would say that case 3 is OK. That it is probably OK to put some of the blame on the applicant if claims are fairly invalidated based on references that the examiner used. The applicant probably should have taken a closer look and made sure the claims defined over the cited references.
But, case 2 is simply unfair to the applicant. The applicant should get another go in prosecution under case 2 after losing their claims in a super-duper office action fueled by 100’s of thousands of dollars.
I’ve seen case 3 come up when reviewing notice of allowance, and let me tell you, not many clients are up for filing an RCE to narrow the claims they already got. A continuation, maybe, but most patents end up in a stack for licensing or defense or just to make stockholders happy, so validity is often not the top concern.
Did you even notice the subtle shift of “blame” to the applicants there…?
Whatever the use of the property after Grant has ZERO to do with doing a quality examination each and every time.
Zero.
“I completely agree that the single easiest way to vastly improve prosecution is to improve search.”
True dat.
Of course, one thing practitioners and applicants can do is to come to grips with the fact that all U.S. examiners approach searching with the attitude of, “Let me see, I didn’t bother to actually read the application, but let’s take a look at what they’re claiming. Oh, that seems pretty broad. How unreasonably can I interpret that? Okay, now that I’ve done that, let me do some word searching. Hey this first reference has some of the same words as the claim. Guess I’m done searching. Time to write up this Office Action and show this applicant just how ridiculously broad his/her claims are.”
Once you realize that this is the approach to searching that is taught, enforced, and most importantly, rewarded through the use of the examiners’ production system, you’ll find that you can draft claims that do a better job of getting some hopefully at least analogous art cited to you.
Of course, I recognize that just because applicants have done the best they can do is not a guarantee of success. But you gotta do everything you can do. You can’t worry about the rest.
Certain people will have the layers of their closed eyes be termed “laminate” and will cry out that those wanting patents are just “grifters”
Or something.
😉
It would be nice in interviews with applicant if their representative actually understood the invention, or had the inventors on speaker to help out.
“It would be nice in interviews with applicant if their representative actually understood the invention, or had the inventors on speaker to help out.”
Ah yes, forgot to mention that. The incessant, tireless, remorseless need of each and every examiner to really get to the bottom of what “the invention” really is.
So yeah, it does help to include a picture claim to help the examiner scratch that itch.
The incessant, tireless, remorseless need of each and every examiner to really get to the bottom of what “the invention” really is.
Well, someone has to do it. Gob knows you’re incapable of it.
That’s the job of Congress.
Oh wait, you don’t like the job they have actually done in that context – hence your curse-ade….
How silly.
“So yeah, it does help to include a picture claim to help the examiner scratch that itch.”
It actually really does. There’s a whole lot of people filing those now in my art. I still have some folks in the AU making valiant stands at trying to reject them. A page long and just full of tiny details. Details just everywhere.
A page long and just full of tiny details. Details just everywhere.,
Some details matter.
In the information processing context, most details are worthless baloney. If your innovation is “if you determine x, then infer y”, it doesn’t really matter what you label “x” and “y”.
Eventually this will become the most obvious thing in the world to everyone and we’ll all look back at the system as it exists now and laugh. For now it requires hand-holding and an explanation of the difference between objective physical reality and abstract hoohaw.
> “if you determine x, then infer y”, it doesn’t really matter >what you label “x” and “y”.
Why do you bother to use words when you post to the blog? It doesn’t matter. Just generate a random stream of electrons. Doesn’t matter if you turn left or right in a car. Does matter if the oven is turned off or on.
It just doesn’t matter. ‘Cause you said so.
It just doesn’t matter. ‘Cause you said so.
Not because “I said do”. It doesn’t matter because, without any novel objective physical structure or new physical transformation in the claim, what’s being protected is an inference, i.e., a quintessential example of an abstraction.
This is easy stuff. The fact that you can’t follow it without me holding your hand is a good sign that you should stay far away any discussion of patents. But we know you can’t help yourself.
Tell me again about the optional claim format that is just that: optional.
It’s helpful to understand what the inventor thinks the invention is, because then examiner’s can focus their search much better. When I have one very broad independent claim, followed by 19 seemingly sporadic, divergent, random, sets of limitations, it can be really hard to figure out which elements are important, and which are just fluff. Because we all know that many applications contain a lot of fluff. I’m for limiting applications to 10 or 15 pages, absent a petition with reasons demonstrating a need for more than that. If the invention is an improvement, a quick paragraph or two of the state of the art to orient the reader is sufficient, followed by the details of the improvement. I don’t need the history of all technology included in the application, that just obscures the invention (if there even is one).
This was brought up fairly recently – right next to a case that was creating patent profanity about specs being “too thin.”
(You might also want to check out the trend on that other optional claim format that mirrors what you like: Jepson claims – let me know what you think)