Christopher Rudy filed his fishing hook patent application back in 1988 with a file-wrapper-continuation in 1989. At the time he was already a patent attorney and so worked his own case. But, the USPTO offered some resistance. The BPAI/PTAB issued three different opinions on record, and the Federal Circuit also issued a 2020 decision holding that some of the claims were directed to the unpatentable abstract of “selecting a fishing hook based upon observed water conditions.” In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Back on remand, Rudy cancelled the offending claims and finally received his U.S. Patent No. 11,406,092. As a pre-GATT patent, the term should last for 17-years from issuance. That makes a pretty good run going forward: the patent will issue 51 years after its original filing date. This is the first pre-GATT patent issued since 2020. Over the past five years, the Office has issued about 25 (none to Gil Hyatt). A number of these were held in abeyance due to DOD Secrecy Orders. As far as I know, the only one being litigated is 9,674,560 owned by Personalized Media Communications.
= = =
Rudy’s basic discovery was that fishing-lure selection is not a one-size-fits-all situation. He particularly noted that factors such as water-clarity and light intensity at fishing depth will impact lure color selection. The patent includes a nice table: 
The recently issued patent includes a number of apparatus and method claims. My favorite is No. 16, which claims a surefire method for catching a fish.
16. A method to catch fish, comprising steps of
(1) observing clarity of water to be fished to determine whether the water is clear, stained or muddy,
(2) measuring light transmittance at a depth in the water where a fishing hook is to be placed, and then
(3) selecting a color of the fishing hook to be used by matching the observed water conditions ((1) and (2)) with a color [from the table above]
then attaching the selected hook to a fishing line,
then placing the attached, selected hook in the depth in the water where fishing is to take place,
and then catching the fish with the attached, selected hook,
wherein the fishing hook used is disintegrated from but is otherwise connectable to a fishing lure or other tackle and has a shaft portion, a bend portion connected to the shaft portion, and a barb or point at the terminus of the bend, and wherein the fishing hook used is made of a suitable material, which permits transmittance of light therethrough and is colored.
Dennis,
Your heading is misleading. Whales are mammals, not fish. Catching a whale using the method of claim 16 (and I’d love to see someone try) would not be infringing, unless you can argue that a whale is equivalent to a fish. 🙂
LOL Thaks DVAN
LOL Thanks DVAN
Moby the fish just does not have the same allegorical ring to it.
LOL! You get an ‘A’.
Unless I am mistaken the claims are worthless.
SAWS is not nice. I had one where the examiner admitted to me that no matter what I did that they would never allow the claims.
Let’s see the claims, you miserable lying sack of Faux-News inhaling waste.
Does the bile from “The Poopy Diaper” never end?
Can’t someone take “The Poopy Diaper” to a daycare center to have its diaper changed?
Notice the Giant “one-bucket” from the Diaper…
I invented the world’s most valuable invention and the PTO fought me for 40 years until I had no money and died penniless. I blame leftists, giant corporations, Muslims, and vegetarians. I am not a crank.
Claim 1: “in general: the selected hook is less attractive to a fish than another color above, and a chance for an undesirable sighting of the hook by the fish can be lessened.”
That is pretty funny. One would have to show that the hook is less attractive to a fish than another color above to show infringement.
Not my bailiwick, but I can easily imagine that in the fishing arts, that there is a certain amount of anthropomorphication (attributing human qualities to the non-human subject matter).
SAWS is not nice. I had one where the examiner admitted to me that no matter what I did that they would never allow the claims.
I agree that SAWS was bad, but this application was not a SAWS application. Go look at the file wrapper. The PTO had acknowledged allowable claims in Rudy’s application within a year of the filing date. This was not about the PTO dragging the application forever back from grant, but rather about the applicant refusing to take yes for an answer.
If your client invents an improved fuel injector, and then insists on writing some claims that cover only her improved fuel injector, and other claims that cover both her fuel injector and prior art fuel injectors, then it is not the PTO’s fault if she does not receive a notice of allowance. She needs to get real and stop fighting for the claims that cover the prior art—or at least take the grant on the allowable claims and fight for the others in a CON. It is not an example of SAWS if she refuses to see sense, and insists on pursuing the invalid claims in a single application with the allowable claims.
I agree that this doesn’t look like SAWS. Plus, in my case the claims were to a fundamental design of computer chips, which was by a large corporation.
Here, the claims seem worthless.
Jeeze. You weren’t kidding.
Guy was trying to claim a red, green, or orange fishing hook at one point.
I’d be really embarrassed to have defended, or staked any position on, this clown.
What was the actual claim Ben? The broadest claim you are talking about?
Not sure what you are talking about. How are you saying is defending whom? And what?
I think it was claim 50 around 2006.
And I’m referring to people like George acting like it’s an outrage that the PTO pushed back on a claim to a colored fishing hook.
But that doesn’t explain why some inventors got thrown in SAWS – right away – without even being told, without explanation, or without even getting a chance to do much about it or even file an appeal! The program was simply DENIED TO EXIST! They didn’t even KNOW they were being treated ‘differently’ from others!
NOPE – that explanation(/excuse) just doesn’t wash and you know it! But I like the attempt to just toss SAWS under the rug again! Thanks for playing ‘hide & seek’. Wonder how many (expensive) legal hours went into playing THAT (dirty little) PTO GAME? Any guesses?
WARNING: the patent freedumb riders are down below letting us all know that they desperately need to get a life.
This is OUTRAGEOUS & the USPTO should be held ‘criminally liable’ for it, if they ‘intentionally’ delayed or denied a patent to someone who merited it from the beginning. How can The PTO be allowed to violate a person’s constitutional right to a patent, using ‘dirty tricks’ or various ‘delay tactics’? This is why ‘sovereign immunity’ for government officials & workers has to go! The USPTO & its examiners have to be able to be held accountable & ‘liable’ for incompetence, negligence & especially ‘fraudulent intent’ if certain inventors are singled out for ‘punishment’ by means of unjustified denials of IP rights! Such ‘malicious actions’ (evidenced by the prior SAWS program) can obviously ruin the lives & the livelihoods of inventors and cannot be allowed. Why should it be? How can that be considered OK? The Founders wanted inventors to be ‘rewarded’ not punished. They also didn’t want to only enrich lawyers & ‘large corporations’ (that didn’t even exist then). Being an inventor in America should STILL be able to be a ‘real profession’ & not just a ‘pastime’ or ‘hobby’! It once was! So, what happened, Congress?
Time to consider suing the USPTO & its employees in STATE courts, for ‘interference in commerce’, unfair business practices & competition & even RICO conspiracy with large corporations & monopolies. In addition they could also possibly be charged with ‘false advertising’ & ‘consumer/inventor deception’.
Patents AREN’T what they used to be. Now, IN MOST CASES, they’re just a ticket to ‘financial ruin’ and/or bankruptcy! That can’t continue! If it does, China will be the ‘victor’ in the battle for innovation supremacy, because if necessary, they’ll ‘subsidize’ & ‘financial reward’ THEIR inventors & PUNISH those who try to impede them (i.e. large private companies & monopolies). China doesn’t believe in PROTECTING ‘private enterprises’ from competition or helping lawyers ‘line their pockets’, the way that our PTO does (with the help of ‘super-secret’ SABOTAGE programs, like SAWS)!
By the way, we believe the former SAWS program has now been replaced with an equally secret, ‘unwritten policy’, that simply denies ANY & ALL ‘broad patents’ that could adversely impact big companies & monopolies (the PTO’s best, highest paying, and ‘most reliable’ customers). Remember, the USPTO is now being run like a private, self-funded ‘company’, not a government agency working on behalf of the public interest (as it was before). The USPTO has to ‘make money’ now & keep its most valuable customers ‘happy’. Those most valuable customers are NOT independent inventors! They’re ‘corporate inventors’, only! The rest of their activities are now just ‘window dressing’.
So, we’d like to BUST THEM for that (in state courts if necessary). Even federal employees are not ‘immune’ to state laws & state constitutions. If they commit ‘state crimes’ or violations of state laws, they CAN be held liable! For instance, INTENTIONALLY RUINING an inventor’s life & livelihood, could & should be considered a CRIME under various state laws (if such an ‘intent’ can be proven).
We believe that anyone thrown into the PTO’s ‘Black Hole’ that was the prior SAWS program, should be able to sue in a state court, if not federal court. Anyone ‘blacklisted’ by the PTO (especially now) should have that right to sue them & prove their ‘intent’ to a jury, by forcing their testimony under oath (that can’t be done now).
There needs to be accountability & ‘severe punishment’ for the secret creation & implementation of any ‘SAWS-like’ program at the USPTO. We believe similar ‘secret policies’ still exist at the PTO that are ‘specifically intended’ to protect large entities from competition from smaller entities & ‘upstarts’. This includes decisions made by the PTO-paid PTAB. If correct, this needs to be exposed by Congress and/or the FBI if necessary! That is the only way to prove or disprove that ‘corruption’ exists at the PTO. But that can only happen if enough people demand it – especially attorneys! The USPTO now acts like a ‘rogue agency’ able to do anything it wants, without any real oversight or disciplinary actions being taken. We know how that worked at the VA!
P.S. Can’t believe Crouch seems to just take this in stride & treats it as ‘business as usual’ at the PTO. There’s nothing ‘acceptable’ about this. No patent application should take longer than 3 years to put in condition for allowance or be denied for very clear & ‘objectively obvious’ reasons, rather than any ‘ulterior motives’, or the result of incompetence, negligence, embarrassment or ‘wounded egos’. The latter should result in immediate firing & possible prosecution. Ulterior motives as justifications for patent denials have no place in U.S. patent law and are obviously unconstitutional as well.
I was an examiner and I did not like the SAWS program either. SAWS cases were a nightmare for the examiners and no examiner wanted a SAWS case. There was incredible amount of grave criminal conduct at the office back in the day during the Bush administration that I withdrew from representation, i.e. I quit. Almost every licensed attorney in my art unit quit as well. Nobody wants the SAWS type program so please do not blame the examiner since the examiner has NO SAY as to how the case is disposed.
Trump attempting a coup was child’s play compared to the stuff Bush got away with. The PTO is a scary place to work since the security at the office are a bunch of private mercenaries that are not accountable to anyone. Please be very careful when dealing with the PTO and avoid an “extra-judicial homicide” under the exception to Constitutional of “national security.” I was warned by fellow examiners that my life was in danger so this is no joke.
The US needs an independent branch of government to enforce the laws and Constitution of the Federal government on the Federal government just like in most European countries and Canada.
Thanks for confirming what I have suspected for a long time but have only now been able to support with my own first-hand evidence. However, since the federal courts can’t be used to hold the PTO accountable for even felony wrongdoing, due to sovereign immunity (except maybe for murder), I am now considering an attempt to pursue ‘justice’ in a state court where such immunity may not apply (depending on the charges). If nothing more, this would allow me to conduct discovery, obtain internal documents and allow me to question PTO officials & examiners, under oath, without their ability to simply evade any and all such questions, as they currently can. A credible charge of ‘fraud’ cannot be so easily dismissed in a state court, as it can in federal court. Even the USPTO is not above the law (I hope).
I don’t necessarily blame lower level examiners (such as ‘rookies’) for any potential corruption at the PTO, but I do blame primary examiners, their SPEs and higher-ups for ordering them to do very unethical and potentially criminal acts (including forcing claims to be needlessly and intentionally narrowed, to the point where they become ‘entirely worthless’). I also blame anyone there who knew about wrongdoing but never reported it to anyone. How is that possible given the number of employees there? Where were the whistleblowers at the USPTO? Not even ONE such whistleblower? Does this imply that all PTO employees are simply ‘gutless’? I don’t get it. Were they all so terrified of their bosses, as not to be able to say anything?
But since you worked there, do you know if any significant or very valuable inventions were ORDERED to be ‘deep-sixed’ by either engaging in continual denials, ‘endless’ searches intended to find new grounds for rejection, or intimidation efforts intended to ‘force’ applicants to amend their claims so as to become so weak, narrow and ‘neutered’, as to make them legally worthless? Do you know if this was done specifically to protect larger corporations from smaller entities and ‘upstarts’ that could cause them problems, force them to license tech they didn’t want to, and/or give them real competition in an area that they dominated (say cell phones)? Did the PTO have ‘secret’ policies or agendas that went beyond SAWS? Did Congress know about them and did they even authorize the SAWS program? I still haven’t been able to get an answers to those questions (and that’s another reason to file suit in order to finally get them).
And more questions: Was the intent of such actions specifically to prevent ‘broad patents’ from ever being allowed again, as they used to be 100+ years ago (for instance Bell’s telephone and Tesla’s AC electricity patents)? What was the real purpose and motivation for these secret policies? Was it to improve quality or to PREVENT certain extremely valuable and even ‘revolutionary’ inventions from ever seeing the light of day? Was the purpose of BLOCKING certain inventions to protect existing large businesses? For instance, maybe in the energy or fossil fuel industries? Were they being ‘protected’ by the PTO before, using special ‘secret policies’, which have now been augmented and aided by the (PTO ‘paid’) PTAB?
Most important of all, do YOU have any evidence or documentation of unethical or illegal activities that occurred at the USPTO while you were there? If so, we’d be VERY interested in obtaining such information and making it available to members of Congress (in particular, Senator Thom Tillis & other members of the USPTO oversight committee). If they don’t know about this, they certainly need to. Even the USPTO needs to be able to be held accountable for possible ‘corruption’ there. They also have serious security problems there that need to be addressed but which Congress seems uninterested in looking into (such as how many times they may have already been hacked & whether they may have international spies working there and the security risks of their ‘work-from-home’ accommodations now). Do examiners have security clearances? Do outside contractors? How about top-secret clearances or undergoing regular polygraph examinations? How about revolving door issues & outside recruitment efforts that could impact patent decisions?
Bottom line: Deliberate efforts to ‘defraud’ individuals or companies out of potentially broad and valuable patents, shouldn’t simply get punished with a slap on the wrists by a ‘feckless’ PTAB that has no real judicial or enforcement powers and that can’t even ORDER patent issuance along with an extension of term to a full 17 years even for any ‘unnecessary continuations’. Evidence of deliberate fraudulent actions should also be punished with immediate termination and possible prosecution of any and all involved in it. After all, we could be talking of a ‘fraud’ being perpetrated by the PTO that could easily cost those affected millions, or even billions of dollars. How many instances of this might there be (or have been)? This needs looking into (by someone with the guts to do it). Apparently, there are no volunteers among the legal community, as of yet!
I was an Examiner during the Clinton era when there was a pro-applicant attitude to help the applicant obtain a patent. That all changed with the George W. Bush administration. By then, I had left the USPTO, but kept in contact with my colleagues from my old art unit and Patent Academy classmates. The new “directive” from USPTO management was to make it more difficult to obtain a patent. Many of today’s TC Directors and SPEs, and even current PTAB judges, got their start during this anti-grant period of time, and the anti-grant attitude continues to this day, baked into the USPTO culture, IMHO.
Section 101 has been weaponized to make it more difficult to obtain patents, and I just saw a PTAB decision today where the PTAB reversed the Examiner in all rejections but then inserted a 101 rejection as a new ground of rejection (the Examiner had not previously rejected under 101).
Yup. Sounds about right! Might happen because some examiners, supervisors, lawyers & others have ambitions for a (lucrative) next job outside the PTO? If so, it sure wouldn’t hurt to keep the PTO’s ‘best customers’ happy (by NOT allowing certain patents to issue – ever)! Besides, who wants to work for a stupid inventor or ‘startup’ anyway, when you can work for a company like Apple, or Amazon, or Google? No law says they can’t do that! Wouldn’t be constitutional!
All kinds of “Whoa Nelly” there…
link to youtu.be
All you have to say?! That sure takes ‘guts’ anon (like not even using your first name). LOL!
Even aside from the MISS you have in somehow thinking that the non-descript moniker of “George” is somehow “brave” (a laughable proposition), your three largest posts average 315 words for each word of my 6 word observation, and for that literal diarrhea, ALL that you show is that you are absolutely c1ue 1ess when it comes to the law.
I say “meh” in your choice to give an easy target to Malcolm, but you should try to minimize your delus10nal tendencies.
We’ll see who’s clueless about the law! The law benefits from ‘creativity’ too – something you clearly know nothing about! Hopefully you’re NOT a lawyer & that’s why you won’t even use your first name. That shows just how paranoid you are. When have you ever been in a courtroom? I’ve been several times. Won them all (well, some settled quickly out of court, in my favor). LOGIC is my ‘middle’ name! I can make other lawyers ‘cry’ with my logic & ‘logical traps’ & evidence! They never stand a chance.
Hitting the George Carlin filter…
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 17, 2022 at 10:50 am
Even aside from the MISS you have in somehow thinking that the non-descript moniker of “George” is somehow “brave” (a laughable proposition), your three largest posts average 315 words for each word of my 6 word observation, and for that literal dia rrhea
, ALL that you show is that you are absolutely c1ue 1 ess when it comes to the law.
I say “meh” in your choice to give an easy target to Malcolm, but you should try to minimize your de lu s10na1 tendencies.
What law? The kind Donald Trump uses??? LOL!
Why are you blaming the PTO for this absurd timeline. Go look at the file wrapper. Rudy filed in 1989. By 1990, the claims that eventually granted were allowed. All of the extra decades was consumed by time that the Applicant chose to spend fighting for claims that he eventually abandoned. The PTO gave him a definitive rejection by Aug 1990, and even the CAFC agreed with that rejection.
In other words, the 3+ decades of delay here is entirely the result of the Applicant’s decision. The PTO acquitted its responsibilities here admirably.
Applicants would not get to delay applications for such very long time periods of many years if they would be properly processed promptly with priority over later-filed applications after each RCE, continuation, appeal decision, etc.
I do not understand the point that you are making, Paul. The PTO turned around office actions on Rudy’s case quite promptly. Look at the file wrapper. I do not see what the PTO should have done differently, except perhaps make a rejection for prosecution laches. The delay here was Rudy’s doing, not the PTO’s.
Why did he abandon them? Because he agreed they were good, or because he just had to give up after all that time and money? How could they not have been amended in a way satisfactory to both the applicant and the PTO? Did he simply refuse to amend all his claims in any way? Or did he not want to narrow them so much so, that they’d become entirely worthless, just to make the PTO happy? That would need further investigation & analysis. Have you taken the time to do that?
But I’m interested in learning about lots of other cases too. There are 100’s if not 1000’s of them that we haven’t heard anything about. We haven’t even seen the tip of the iceberg! What other ‘funny business’ might we find? Why wasn’t there a ‘super-secret’ SAWS program BEFORE (. . . before there were large corporations and monopolies)? Why in the time of Tesla, didn’t such things happen and why did Telsa and other (now famous) inventors get dozens of ‘very broad’ patents before? Isn’t that what the Founders intended? Not to play ‘favorites’ or attempt to limit who got IP protections? Wasn’t that the whole point of IP, to reward people having new and useful ideas – rather than just TAKING their contributions and then ‘screwing them over’?! Wasn’t that the original ‘social contract’, now eviscerated by the PTO and the PTAB? Don’t think the Founders would’ve been happy with modern patent law, do you? Not for a second! They were all for fairness and equity (well, at least for white folks)! We don’t have that anymore in patent law!
Warning: patent freedum riders down below letting us all know that they desperately need to get a life.
Friendly reminder that “The Founders” bought and sold human beings for slavery and were basically okay with treating women like absolute dirt ftom a human rights perspective. So invoking them and their alleged thoughts about (LOL!) the sanctity of patent rights (not even a fundamental right) is something that only a slow kindergartener would do. Get. A. Life.
It’s one of the most ‘fundamental’ rights in the Constitution! It’s one of the first things they thought of, because England didn’t have such rights! It wasn’t just an ‘amendment’ (and afterthought), like the 2nd! It’s right there in the FIRST Article of the Constitution & I think they were all a lot smarter than you!
If you think the Founders got nothing right b/c some things were STILL not fair, then we should just throw the entire Constitution out & start over, right? But even if we did, patent ‘rights’ would still be in any new one, right near the top (but just EVEN MORE fair and ‘equitable’). You’re all for ‘equality’ of rights, aren’t you? The right of ‘even a poor person’ (or slave, or former slave) to be able to get a ‘broad’ & ‘valuable’ patent, if they merit it, right? Especially after the best efforts of a ‘PTO’ or PTAB to ‘deny’ someone such a right, continue to fail . . . for YEARS? Any ‘sane’ person would find that something was seriously wrong if that should happen and and inventor were STILL denied a patent, right? What about if that happened 100’s or 1000’s of times as it does now, but didn’t 100 years ago?! What if the PTO created a ‘special’, ‘super-secret program’ to ‘blacklist’ certain inventors (by the 100’s or 1000’s), that even their lawyers would never learn about? Does THAT sound Constitutional to you? It can’t to any ‘real lawyer’ that I know! But maybe to someone like a Rudy Giuliani.
No, denying patents to inventors FOR YEARS & thereby shorting their potential terms to NOTHING, just to get them to either ‘give up’ or to amend their claims so that they become ‘entirely worthless’, doesn’t sound right to me. That doesn’t sound Constitutional to me! Don’t think Gerry Spence would’ve thought that constitutional either! But then maybe that’s just me (and Gerry Spence)! lol
“Don’t think the Founders would’ve been happy with modern patent law, do you?”
I find it very unlikely that the Founders would approve of giving out monopolies for the current threshold of disclosure required in the computer arts.
But to be fair, only those with a monetary interest in such patents do approve.
A simple and direct call-out of Ben’s B$.
The innovators for whom I work and obtain patents for sharply disagree with your feelings and misplaced judgments.
Patents almost never result in ‘business monopolies’, unless you think there’s only ONE WAY to solve a problem. Even Viagra had competition almost right away. Being a mathematician & physicist, I KNOW there are always ‘multiple ways’ to solve a problem! But if no one else can come up with another solution (that’s as good or better), then that’s not the fault of the person that is able to do it and they shouldn’t be ‘punished’ for doing it, or be denied the financial rewards that could result from that. No one should be able to use ‘tricks’ (legal or otherwise) to deny a financial reward to an inventor or problem solver. Problem solvers are VERY important & valuable. They should be respected & properly compensated for what they do.
We also now have antitrust laws (that we didn’t used to) to handle ‘rare’ instances where only one person or company ends up ‘cornering a market’ with their ideas and/or patent(s). Most inventions never even get commercialized and 90%+ of those that do, usually fail anyway – so they ‘can’t be’ monopolies – for long. So that means you’re worrying about something that basically never happens in reality, or ‘might’ happen only once in a 1,000,000 times!
Also, why wasn’t Bell’s broad & super-valuable telephone patent, a ‘disaster’ for society (even though it established a real business monopoly for many years)? How about AC electricity? Did Tesla end up ‘ruling the world’ with THAT one? Did he get ‘fantastically rich’ from that one? How about Marconi? Did all our past inventors become wealthy, all-powerful, monopolistic, ‘despots’, because they were issued broad and thereby ‘enforceable’ patents for often ‘breakthrough’ inventions? Did they all get ‘monopolies’ as a result of their patents, the way Elon Musk has managed to – without them? No, I don’t think even broad patents were a really big problem 100+ years ago!
The truth is ‘business monopolies’ have NOTHING to do with inventions & patents on those inventions – no matter how broad or valuable those patents might be (for a short while)! Elon Musk doesn’t even CARE about patents & they have nothing to do with HIS great ‘business success’ and/or ‘monopolies’!
Your argument is just another attempt to ‘excuse’ the RIPPING OFF of inventors – especially those that come up with really important & valuable inventions – inventions that could be worth millions & billions of dollars, to a company wanting to get them them for free!
Besides patents are only good for – at most – 17 years now! And that’s from the date of first filing – not issuance! If continuations are needed, their terms can go down to NOTHING now! Given that it can easily take 5-10 years to go from an invention to a commercial product, even 10 years of a remaining patent term wouldn’t likely allow the establishment of a ‘business monopoly’ in a field. How long did the inventor of the string trimmer get to ‘monopolize’ his invention? How about the inventor of the first medical MRI machine?
Inventions & patents will NEVER be the source of ‘economic’ problems for society (not even most new drugs – developed by universities). It’s only the greedy people & companies that exploit them, that are. Most inventors aren’t really greedy! They mainly want credit, public recognition and at least the ability to break even on their work.
A lack of great new inventions WILL be a big problem though! And there won’t be many of those in the future if inventors aren’t ‘fairly compensated’ for their contributions & their willingness to often take HUGE risks and expend large amounts of their own money (especially for legal & PTO fees). Remember, patents were intended to be a ‘social contracts’ between society & inventors. New ideas in exchange for credit, recognition, ‘government protections’ & hopefully fair compensation. We don’t have any of that anymore. That ‘contract’ was broken long ago!
“Or did he not want to narrow them so much so, that they’d become entirely worthless, just to make the PTO happy?”
Bro it ain’t always just about making the PTO happy lol. There’s this new thing called the law and prior art.
Ah . . . but we have this ‘new thing’ called PROOF, ‘6’!
Proof that examiners often ‘sabotage claims’ by forcing them to be so ridiculously narrowed or made ‘obviously stupid’, as to make them totally worthless and therefore ‘no longer a problem for anyone’! And the PTO doesn’t worry so much about ‘laws’ either b/c they ALL have sovereign immunity and can do pretty much whatever they want (like creating SAWS)!
They can screw you over in a dozen ways, and there’s NOTHING you can do about it! No one can even be fired over there (unless maybe they kill someone)! And they don’t worry AT ALL about ‘ethics’, LOL! Because the law doesn’t even cover that ‘quaint concept’!
They can also use ‘unlimited searches’ and 103 objections (ad infinitum) to either get an applicant (they don’t like) to waste their time, money & patience, til they just give up and go away, or ‘force them’ into reducing their patent terms to NOTHING, using these deliberate delay tactics (made possible by AIA & the PTAB). Either ‘strategy’ accomplishes the same thing . . . “No patent for you!” (remember the ‘soup Nazi’)? Yeah, just like that!
So, don’t EVER piss off your examiner, folks. Don’t even think about it! You’ll end up in PTO purgatory – forever! You’ll get ‘blacklisted’ by the USPTO. Your career as an inventor will be OVER! Kiss it goodbye! Just ask any of those caught up in the ‘secret’ SAWS program! The PTO still hasn’t released their names, by the way! They don’t have to. They don’t have to do anything they don’t want to! That’s our USPTO! Impossible to be held accountable for anything – even fraud!
“but we have this ‘new thing’ called PROOF”
What proof and what evidence is supporting this “proof”?
“No one can even be fired over there (unless maybe they kill someone)!”
Bro I personally know people that were fired from the office. Or “encouraged to leave voluntarily” your choice.
“And they don’t worry AT ALL about ‘ethics’, LOL! ”
Most of the people I know are fair ethical in the office.
“So, don’t EVER pis s off your examiner, folks. Don’t even think about it!”
There’s never any reason to upset an examiner. What would be the point?
“Your career as an inventor”
Lelz.
“Proof that examiners often ‘sabotage claims’ by forcing them to be so ridiculously narrowed or made ‘obviously stu pid’, as to make them totally worthless and therefore ‘no longer a problem for anyone’! ”
That’s also known as making them make a clearly valid claim to their invention. Presumably done with 112/102/103 rejections. Yes, that’s what the office does bro. By design. That’s a lot of its purpose. The office does not exist to just “create problems” for people lol. If you want a super valuable claim that will “problematic” to other people, then you will quite often need to fig ht for it. Just fyi, nearly everyone that files in my little sub-field comes in the door with a shotgun/ wish/ meme claim initially (they’re claiming something from 5-8+ years ago). I then send them prior art. They amend until they get around it. Often I imagine, their claims will “no longer be a problem” for anyone. That’s how the system works bro.
Dude, I’m not going to litigate this HERE with YOU! You’re probably not even a lawyer. But, in any case, the simple fact is we have LOTS of ‘our own’ evidence now, not to mention what could be garnered from the SAWS program (under subpoena) and even from YOUR little ‘humorous’ aside below (9.6.1.1), about that one examiner you mentioned below! You know, the examiner you said was ‘hiding’ cases in the ceiling? Yeah, that one! We didn’t even KNOW about that one!!! LOL! Yeah, so don’t go anywhere, OK, we maybe could use your testimony too now! LOL! In fact, LMAO! Talk about free ‘admissions’ of guilt & fraud!
We also have a case (and proof) where an examiner deliberately LIED about ‘not getting’ a response to an OA, even they obviously had gotten it and it was literally ‘sitting on their desk’! An administrative judge (requested by an Ombudsman) had to set the record straight in that case, and had to reinstate our ‘now abandoned’ application (for free – no petitions required from us)! Wonder what happened to that ‘criminal’ JERK of an examiner? I’m not sure, but he was likely sacked the same day! Will have to look into that, now that I think of it, since I still have his name. Would be easy to track him down now & find out what happened to him, since he could come in handy as a witness (for the prosecution) too! lol!
So, there’s lots of evidence that I, and probably 100’s of others could now supply as ‘proof’ of PTO malfeasance, which could easily lead to ‘felony’ fraud charges, not just civil ones!
Yeah, we’re done playing ‘nice’ with the PTO & it’s examiners who really only care about ‘staying out of trouble’, doing what they’re told to, getting their ‘points’ & collecting their paychecks! Worrying about potentially starving inventors or those on the brink of divorce? – yeah, not so much! Worrying that they could go broke, without getting a ‘good’ patent? Yeah, not that either!
We’re going to push for a full investigation of the PTO and if we can’t get that, then we’ll just go ahead and file a lawsuit charging the PTO & certain examiners & SPE’s with RICO fraud! Simple as that! When we do, we’d also ask a ‘jury’ for a very large damage award & maybe ‘withering’ punitive damages as well – just so they will get the message that NO ONE is above the law & no one in the public should just ‘trust’ the USPTO to ‘do the right thing’ anymore. And Congress will also have to learn that the PTO needs to be ‘policed’ much better from now on. Perhaps that could even take a dozen more lawsuits or maybe a ‘huge class action’ now! Wonder what amount of compensation the USPTO (i.e. taxpayers) might end up having to pay out, if that should ever happen? Billions?
The days of ‘sovereign immunity’ and ‘unlimited qualified immunity’ have to come to an end, and this might be the perfect way to hasten that into happening. Any organization that’s free of any and all accountability WILL quickly become corrupt or at least incompetent and uncaring! It did at the VA and other agencies of government, including the military. It’s actually amazing that corruption at the PTO hasn’t already been looked into. Really hard to believe, since it’s almost obvious now.
By the way, we’re ‘confident’ there’ll soon be one or more whistleblowers coming forward as well! Happens sooner or later! Almost never fails when it comes to large organizations having many employees. There will at least be ONE honest & courageous one in the batch, to finally come forward with the truth! Not essential, but would really be helpful in our case! A large lawsuit against the PTO would probably ‘encourage’ that to happen, too, especially given the large number of ‘former examiners’ out there (who remember the good old days, when they WEREN’T under the clock to deliver) . . . including maybe some ‘angry ones’ who quit, or some who were fired. What might THEY have to say about how the PTO is run these days (post AIA)? How about a former PTAB judge? Now THAT would be huge!
Oh, and going to the IG??? Yeah, they’re pretty useless too, since they have any judicial powers and can’t even recommend prosecution. They’re often only interim IGs & get replaced often too. So, NO! Not the place to go if you want to get real accountability & ‘speedier justice’.
* since they DON’T have any judicial powers *
“We believe [there is an] ‘unwritten policy’, that simply denies ANY & ALL ‘broad patents’ that could adversely impact big companies”
Right. And Dems stole the election from Spraytan Crotchgrabber! And “campus PC” is out of control! And our children are being groomed for gayness by elementary school teachers! And BROWN PEOPLE ARE COMING TO GET YOU!
Good grief what a country.
The funny thing here is that Malcolm’s diatribe about “the brown people” is actually b1ow 1ng up in the face of the Liberal Left and the “Operation Open Southern Border,” as those “brown people” more often than not draw away from the Far Liberal Left “US is the bad” mantra.
” that simply denies ANY & ALL ‘broad patents’ that could adversely impact big companies & monopolies (the PTO’s best, highest paying, and ‘most reliable’ customers)”
I can confirm that I didn’t hear about it if tis so. I find it unlikely tis so.
“For instance, INTENTIONALLY RUINING an inventor’s life & livelihood”
How’s that being done?
“There needs to be accountability & ‘severe punishment’ for the secret creation & implementation of any ‘SAWS-like’ program at the USPTO.”
Nice fantasy bro, but the upper levels of bureaucracy always get to oversee the lower rungs if they see fit. It’s that way in every single bureaucracy, and the PTO is no exception.
“We believe similar ‘secret policies’ still exist at the PTO that are ‘specifically intended’ to protect large entities from competition from smaller entities & ‘upstarts’.”
Where’s your evidence bro?
“That is the only way to prove or disprove that ‘corruption’ exists at the PTO. ”
First you need evidence bruh.
“The USPTO now acts like a ‘rogue agency’ able to do anything it wants, without any real oversight or disciplinary actions being taken. ”
Not sure about that. The actions which you’re so against are likely “overseen” just fine, and undersec likely approved (on behalf of prezzy).
“No patent application should take longer than 3 years to put in condition for allowance or be denied for very clear & ‘objectively obvious’ reasons”
It was denied for “very clear and objectively obvious reasons” many times duh. Eventually he overcame the rejections, normal prosecution style. The PTO does not force people to put their claims into condition for allowance bro, the congress rather empowered them to throw claims considered by the office to be not allowable to the office forever if they so please.
“The latter should result in immediate firing & possible prosecution. ”
Good luck staffing the office bro.
Unfortunately your ‘opinions’ don’t matter in this case & have no merit. Only actual evidence and facts (maybe even confessions) together with the pertinent civil and/or criminal laws, matter in this case. And I’m not talking about ‘patent laws’ either! I’m talking potential ‘criminal charges’! I’m talking possible charges of fraud & even RICO fraud! I’m talking about intentional ‘business sabotage’, ‘unfair competition’ and just plain ‘corruption’. Unfortunately, the PTAB can’t address those kinds of charges, can it? LOL! Maybe it’d even call for a JD or FBI investigation. That’s what I think anyway.
But what would really be helpful would be ‘just one’ courageous PTO employee, willing to be a whistleblower! Maybe social media or the press could help out there. Maybe a reward for information and sworn testimony would also help. Indeed, a whistleblower might be ALL that would ever be needed (to put some people in jail).
“Unfortunately your ‘opinions’ don’t matter in this case & have no merit”
I didn’t give you my opinion. I’m explaining to you how the system actually works old timer.
“I’m talking potential ‘criminal charges’!”
Super fun bro, but in our system of law you have to bring the evidence first. You can report anything you suspect being evidence of “criminalitylol” to the office of the inspector general etc. etc.
“That’s what I think anyway.”
Right, and you’re mistaken. But you can report anything you like to the inspector general. But we both know that nothing will come of it, because you have no evidence of anything that warrants review.
“But what would really be helpful would be ‘just one’ courageous PTO employee, willing to be a whistleblower! ”
What do you want them to “whistleblow” on bro?
“Indeed, a whistleblower might be ALL that would ever be needed (to put some people in jail).”
It would if there was super misconduct going on that was illegal, but since their isn’t then no, a “whistleblower” won’t help you.
“Indeed, a whistleblower might be ALL that would ever be needed (to put some people in jail).” – George
“It would if there was super misconduct going on that was illegal, but since their isn’t then no, a “whistleblower” won’t help you.” – 6
Theranos? Enron? Bernie Madoff? WeWork? The VA? Burn pits? Camp Lejeune? Harvey Weinstein? Flint Water? . . . DOZENS more!
. . . Fear works ‘6’! People don’t like getting fired and/or ‘sued’, especially by the government (since that could be REALLY life changing & for what?)! People don’t like sticking their necks out. That even goes for lawyers. They keep their mouths shut all the time & even HELP in cover-ups (ask Trump’s lawyers). You should know that (and I’m pretty sure you do).
Funny, but for some reason I DON’T LIKE fraudsters & crooks and will call them out whenever I can. For instance I was pretty certain Elizabeth Holmes & Theranos was one, right from the start. And Elon Musk’s ‘Neuralink’ is just another fraud (and I told him that)!
“It would if there was super misconduct going on that was illegal …” – ‘6’
So, if it wasn’t actually ‘super-misconduct’ or ‘super-illegal’ in your eyes (just maybe a ‘little illegal’) then we could just let that slide, right? That would be OK, right? If it was just a few cases of corruption, lying, sabotage and/or fraud, that would be no big deal, right? Only a few inventors might have been ‘intentionally’ cheated & defrauded out of an invention that could have been worth millions, or even billions of dollars, right? That’s wouldn’t affect the U.S. economy much at all, right? And there are always plenty of other ‘suckers’ out there, that we could get to just ‘give us’ their new ideas & inventions – for free, right? In fact The PTO & lawyers could make lots of money from doing that 1000’s of times a year, couldn’t they? No one would even know or ever find out, right? After all the ‘super-secret’ SAWS program worked pretty well for doing that, didn’t it? LOL!
P.S. Sure glad you’re not a cop ‘6’!
No patent application should take longer than 3 years to put in condition for allowance or be denied for very clear & ‘objectively obvious’ reasons…
No enemy is every really defeated until they surrender. In a similar manner, no patent applicant can be denied claims until the applicant actually gives up.
The allowed claims here were allowed within a year of the filing date. The applicant could have taken the grant on the allowable claims and filed a CON to keep fighting for the others. Instead, the applicant chose to keep all claims (allowable and not allowable) together in one application, and to keep fighting for the rejected claims for over three decades. He appealed those rejections to the BPAI and lost. He appealed his BPAI loss to the CAFC and lost. He requested en banc reconsideration of his CAFC loss and lost that one as well.
In other words, repeatedly he was told—in clear and easily understood legal prose—by the relevant authorities that his claims were not patentable. He refused to listen. The applicant got exactly what you are saying that he should receive—a notice of allowance within three years for the allowable claims and a clear and obvious explanation of the faults of his unallowable claims in the same time frame.
The fault here really does not lie with the PTO, but with the applicant. They are neither hypnotists nor thaumaturges. It is not reasonable to expect that they be always able to convince an enthusiastic applicant to give up by the force of their reasoning. As Upton Sinclair famously observed, “[i]t is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
I’m not defending this case! There are lots of stupid & stubborn people out there.
But there are 100’s & even 1000’s of other very ‘problematic’ cases, where inventors might have just gotten ‘shafted’ by the PTO, for one reason or another (maybe even out of spite). I mean, what was the whole ‘super-secret’ SAWS program all about? We don’t even know how many people got caught in it. The PTO won’t talk about it or tell the public how many inventors got ‘blacklisted’ in it. Doesn’t that raise some serious questions? Why would the PTO have even created such a surreptitious & ‘stealthy’ program. Nothing like that ever existed before! Tesla & Edison never got ‘blacklisted’ (and Tesla was a little ‘weird’ and had some enemies, including Edison). So, since when has our USPTO maintained a BLACKLIST of American inventors (that I guess they just didn’t like)?! That’s kind of UN-American, isn’t it?
“I mean, what was the whole ‘super-secret’ SAWS program all about?”
It’s in the name bro. It’s a “sensitive application warning system”. There just to alert management to any app that might have been considered to be sensitive for any particular reason so that they may choose to evaluate it further, or not. It’s literally that simple. It’s nothing super sinister, just a heads up to the management of any app they may want to take a look at before issue, or not. They’re management, that is their prerogative ultimately. Though everyone having a cow about it supposedly being some super secret, and it not actually doing much irl, got them to just end it as a formal “program”.
“We don’t even know how many people got caught in it. ”
Who cares bro? Mostly it’s likely just a bunch of megacorps for 90-95%+. Whom you care nothing about.
“Doesn’t that raise some serious questions? ”
No.
“The PTO won’t talk about it or tell the public how many inventors got ‘blacklisted’ in it. ”
They’ve already discussed it, and the number is 0 that got “blacklisted” “in it”. For how many decades do you think they’re going to sit around and discuss it? The original people involved are literally starting to retire, in ten more years there will be barely anyone left that was even here doing it at the mgmt level. But you’re still going to be btching about it.
“Why would the PTO have even created such a surreptitious & ‘stealthy’ program”
Bro, it’s just an “internal program”. As in, it’s literally just some training slides for examiners to let them know to let the mgmt know of any app that seems sensitive. And it was created because of the “bad patents” issued in the 90’s and early 2000’s to try to get mgmt to catch them before they were issued. All this is public btw.
“Nothing like that ever existed before! ”
Right, and we had a whole rash of publicity about “bad patents” in the late 90’s and early 2000’s and it was created.
“So, since when has our USPTO maintained a BLACKLIST of American inventors (that I guess they just didn’t like)?!”
They still don’t so far as I know. Though there were a few individual examiners rumored to do so, that was never established with good evidence save the one that was hiding cases in the ceiling lol. But they got resolved.
“That’s kind of UN-American, isn’t it?”
Probably, but no less so than being a “crank” like yourself.
“It’s in the name bro. It’s a “sensitive application warning system”. There just to alert management to any app that might have been considered to be sensitive for any particular reason so that they may choose to evaluate it further, or not. It’s literally that simple. ” – ‘6’
If it was all so ‘innocent’ and ‘useful’, then why didn’t anything like that exist for over 200 years and why did they finally get rid of it??? LOL! They had their pants pulled down, didn’t they? They finally got ‘exposure’ they didn’t want to get, right? They ‘got caught’, right? Yeah, don’t think the Founders would have been all that impressed with the ‘SAWS program’. Also, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, is it??? If they had wanted something ‘useful’ like that, they would have PUT IT IN THERE! It’s got all the ‘essentials’ like giving people patents (with 17 years of protection as decided by Congress) if they deserve them . . . without ‘tricking them’ into accepting something worth MUCH LESS, if anything. They didn’t want a PTO that engaged in ‘dirty tricks’ in order to get rid of some potentially ‘troublesome’ and/or valuable patents.
And I’m not your ‘bro’ – ‘dude’! Can’t imagine that ever being the case.
“All this is public btw.”
No it’s NOT! Where? Give me a link to ‘all of it’! They never even said how many inventors were put on the ‘blacklist’. They have never made their names public, have they? Why not, they list the names of inventors, even on applications, right? That’s NOT private information, is it? Why not list all of their ‘SAWS inventors’, then? You know their ‘special inventors’?
You know inventors they just wanted to ‘make sure’ were filing ‘quality’ patents, LIKE THEY ALL DO NOW (when SAWS is no longer needed). You know, patents they can NOW easily dismiss on the basis of numerous STATUTORY requirements or the need to make certain amendments (while ensuring ‘maximal’ legal protections would still apply under the statutes)? Guess that wasn’t possible before SAWS? Is that what you’re saying?
I don’t understand why he adddeectge ‘catch the fish’ step; seems suplurfluous to what his invention is about. And he is a patent attorney? Bizarre.
“the patent will issue 51 years after its original filing date”
…will expire, ftfy
This patent No. 11,406,092 was issued on August 9, 2022 and was originally filed in 1988, 34 years ago. There is no valid excuse for that kind of massive PTO delay and judicial delay.
Good luck with enforcement.
Did Rudy file a continuation application?
No. This application was a CON, but he did not file another.
There are probably much worse ones. He made a lot of mistakes too.
How many fish need to be caught before Rudy breaks even for what he’s out pocketed to date?
Yeah, sometimes you have to decide it’s time to fish or cut bait.
… the decision part (AI) is being held back as a Trade Secret (for obvious reasons).
Except now the PTO (or PTAB) will do that for you!