Leveraging Electronic Resources To Retrieve Information From Applicant’s Other Applications and Streamline Patent Issuance

The USPTO has issued a Federal Register Request for Comments on the best use of the internet for communicating with applicants and streamlining patent issuance.  The Office will also hold a roundtable on September 28 (webcast).

Particular issues – best way to receive documents, and avoid duplicates in ways that improve examination “quality and efficiency” while also reducing any burden on applicants.  In addition, the USPTO is looking to modify the patent document and is asking “what should be included on the front page of the patent.”

17 thoughts on “Leveraging Electronic Resources To Retrieve Information From Applicant’s Other Applications and Streamline Patent Issuance

  1. 6

    NDA signed by “the Chief of Small Arms for the army’s Infantry Combat Directorate (DCD), Lt. Col. Dean. Prior”, and invalid without recourse.

    Who needed to sign, Obama? (much more reliable…)

    Sounds like China only needs Federal circuit to answer US criticism.

  2. 4

    Unfortunately, the Patent Office and government in general will be the first to use AI to maximize fees and artificially examine patent and trademark applications. In addition to the higher rejection rate, the applicant and his or her attorney will shoulder the bad things that happen, when exposed in court.

    The fall guy? The attorney of course. Does, any attorney truly knows the “intent” of a client?

  3. 3

    Hasn’t the U.S. TM office already figured most of this out already? Examples: Simple upload and viewing of documents, ability to route signatures to signors via email for electronic signature, no reliance on Java…

  4. 2

    Using the Internet to convey any of the essential elements of a patent is a bad idea.

    1. The Patent Office has a history of using technology incompetently.

    a) The Patent Office dragged its feet for years saying it wasn’t feasible to post patents online.

    b) When the Patent Office made it possible to file electronically and view the progress of a Patent Application online (PAIR) it adopted software that requires the use of JAVA. PAIR has always been sensitive to the version of JAVA being used and has always lagged adapting to new versions of JAVA.

    The Patent Office has noted that there are browsers that do not support JAVA at all, and in the future no browsers will support it. There does not appear to be a timetable target for replacing JAVA and if there were, the Patent Office would miss it. There is a limit to how long you can maintain an old machine running an old Operating System in order to run old software.

    c) PAIR is frequently slow or just plain unavailable. Recently the Patent Office noted that some of the files people are downloading from PAIR are corrupted.

    2. Making any of the essential elements available only through the Internet makes the Patent Office computers a prime target for hackers, both foreign and domestic.

    3. Not everyone has reliable full-time access to the Internet. And if the Grid goes down then no one will have access to the Internet and a valuable resource for rebuilding a technological society will be gone.

    4. The Patent Office has already compromised the integrity of the system by using Google Analytics on the PAIR sign-in page.

    If your IP address resolves to your law firm’s domain name then Google knows your pattern of PAIR usage.

    Even if your IP address doesn’t resolve to your law firm’s domain name Google can correlate your IP address with your Google searches.

    Even if you do not use PAIR, Google can correlate your IP address with Google searches to see what kind of technology you are interested in even if they do not know exactly who you are.

    If you use Google’s other services they know exactly who you are.

    If Patent Office just wants to redesign the appearance of an issued Patent, ok, but don’t make anything dependent on the Internet. (Why are they still dividing a page into two columns? That is so 19th Century.)


    1. 2.1


      It’s “just data,” and all data wants to be “freeeee.”

      What could possibly go wrong?

      (Holds up a sign even Sheldon can readily see)

    2. 2.2

      “Why are they still dividing a page into two columns?” Because it IS so 19th Century. Black on white sheet drawings also are pretty much the same today, though not as good as the pen and India ink drawings on Bristol board by draftpersons before CAD.

      1. 2.2.1

        not as good as

        Lol – now there is a relative term.

        What metrics are you using for your “good?” Per chance, are those metrics completely subjective? Do your metrics include ease of making, communicating, updating or otherwise changing? ease of reuse or modification?

        I think not.


          Of course not, I mean visually and artistically. As to visually informative, is any CAD system doing intelligent shading? Yet, I wouldn’t trade the current system for that of the past, nor would I trade my cheap computer for a typewriter, with an original and three carbon copies to prepare. (circa 1966 Naylor & Neal, SF)

          Metrics, metrics, metrics. While this modern term is overused, what does it mean? Categories in a relational data base? Or, some sinister plot for harmonization?


            “Visually and artistically”…?

            You’ve been away from CAD for far too long, even as you seem to scoff at the other (business) metrics.

            Here’s a hint: this is not an art form, but a business t001.

  5. 1

    Maybe it’s time the PTO repaid the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of user fees they’ve spent over the past several years attending all of these “trilateral” and “IP5” meetings and amended Rule 56 so that applicants don’t have to hold the examiners’ hands and send them every reference and foreign OA.

    Would be nice to get something for all of our money the PTO’s been spending. Maybe a little “customer service” once in awhile.

    1. 1.1

      The real complaint has been transferring “excess” funds to the general treasury.

      1. 1.1.1

        Yup – the “innovator tax.”

        Funny how quiet Malcolm has always been about THIS type of G-g-g-grifting…

      2. 1.1.2

        No argument from me on that. But the CIO of the PTO has wasted hundreds of millions, if not billions, on really cruddy projects and tools that neither the examiner’s nor the patent bar find very useful. And the PTO has been spending a lot of time on this “harmonization” effort and it has yet to provide any measurable benefit to applicants.


          “HARMonization” for the sake of being “harmonized” is simply a rather huge mistake and places the wishes of those who might most benefit from such a “one world order” above what remains at the heart of ALL patent systems: benefits to the individual sovereign.

          It is easy to see signs of agency capture (or Congressional capture) when this bedrock premise is ig nored (or even trampled).


            As I have said in the past, First to File Fosters Fraud, it’s 4F. Not qualified to serve under the U.S. Constitution’s design to promote the useful arts to secure to inventor’s their discoveries. All the rest is mumbo jumbo.

Comments are closed.