USPTO Asking For Ideas To Enhance Patent Quality 42
dtmos writes "Tired of seeing poor-quality patents issued? Have a great way to solve the problem? Well, here's your chance to be part of the solution. The USPTO has issued a Request for Comments on Enhancement in the Quality of Patents (PDF), seeking public comment on ways to improve 'the process for obtaining the best prior art, preparation of the initial application, and examination and prosecution of the application.' Comments should be sent to patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov by February 8, 2010."
Bradbury's (Score:2)
I have a patent (Score:2)
...on issuing low-quality patents. The USPTO owes me millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because I wanted to post my own version of it later in the timeline as though this had never appeared.
(That's not just irony, it's comedy.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if you "forget" something (under the current system)? Now reread what the GP said.
Re: (Score:1)
So, are you saying that the "GP" was saying that if you forget one thing in your patent application that all your hard work is down the drain? There is actually quite a lengthy process of back and forth (I forget what that is called) where the USPTO asks you to clarify things and allows you to modify the application. However, still I don't think that simply leaving something out, however immaterial, should disqualify a patent.
Simply trying to make it more difficult to get a patent (or easier to invalidate
Re: (Score:2)
It could all be solved by teaching the patent examiners HOW TO GOOGLE SHIT.
Re: (Score:1)
good book on patents (Score:2, Informative)
Method for paying some goddamn attention. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As for 2, I don't think that would be good because physical objects could be quite costly and some guy in a basement might have an innovative idea, but not have the resources to produce it. He needs the patent to protect his great idea (reward) while he can sell royalties for production or sell the patent.
I think with 3 you will just end up with company wars. All the c
Peer review (Score:2)
Place all patent applications on the web and ask for comments.
But first, I wish to patent the spam/bullshit/troll/sandbag filter, which you will need to weed the valid comments from the noise.
Re: (Score:1)
Send request for comment to all prior work refs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think all that would really do it give companies a change to cause trouble.. the ones that can afford to anyway. Prior art does need to be researched more but this has more to with patent office having time to deal with stuff than competence.
Re: (Score:2)
One issue with your suggestion is that by asking inventors of prior art about their inventions, we are likely to overestimate the skill of the ordinary artisan. Obviousness is meant to be considered from the perspective of a "person having ordinary skill in the art" - not an expert in the art, not Linus Torvalds, not Steve Wozniak. In some fields, ordinary skill may require a Ph.D., or it may be represented by Mom doing some gardening on the weekend.
We actually are allowed to contact applicants themselves
Shocked silence (Score:2)
Or a Slashdot forum with less than 50 postings. That's what you get when you ask such a question.
And while we are at it. We also welcome
* suggestions on how to improve support for proprietary software
* input for the banks on how to increase capital gains
* proposals for improving the safety mechanisms of guided missiles
Examiner (Score:2)
Make the patent examiner personally liable for the mistakes he/she makes.
If someone passes a patent that is overturned, then that person is directly responsible for the damage that invalid patent has caused to society.
Its probably difficult to sue government employees so maybe subcontract it all out under a contract with high penalties and reward for quality.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in essence, you're saying we should be treated like specialist surgeons - get paid $400k a year, but spend most of that on malpractice insurance.
Also, keep in mind that patent examination is an art, not a science. Some things are going to be missed, both in terms of false positives and false negatives. It's about finding what we can in the time allotted (between maybe 6 and 30 hours, depending on our field and our level of experience), applying it against the claims, and allowing the application if we
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm.
I've invented a few things, though I hold no patents on them because I've understood it to be a very expensive process for a simple individual such as myself.
Every now and then, I run across a patent for an idea that I've had, or a project that I've built, filed sometimes years after I've already invented the thing. It's annoying and frustrating, especially for the stuff that I've written about and/or published, since I also understand it to be a very expensive process to litigate a patent.
So. I have
Re: (Score:2)
If you have prior art which presents a "substantial new question of patentability" for an existing enforceable patent (i.e., it's during the patent term and the owner has been paying their maintenance fees), you can file for an ex parte reexamination. The fee is not exactly inexpensive ($2200 or more, considerably more than the fees for actually applying for a patent), and there are some fairly complicated hoops to jump through that might make hiring an attorney a good idea. Still, it's something to consi
No Software patents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about you leave the patents to things that are actually patentable, and not processes, or ways of doing things?
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was saying that this needs to change, especially in the area of software. Why do you ask?
No, I think he was completely ignorant and said patentable subject matter includes "things that are actually patentable, and not processes."
If he wanted this to change, the arena is not the courts (i.e. the pending Bilski case) or the USPTO (this article), but Congress. You know, those old white guys who write laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Bilski says "machine or physical transformation". The word "physical", combined with the ambiguity of the U.S.C. that you quoted, means the courts may indeed be the arena.
Re: (Score:2)
Bilski says "machine or physical transformation". The word "physical", combined with the ambiguity of the U.S.C. that you quoted, means the courts may indeed be the arena.
No, Bilski said "tied to a machine, or physical transformation".
See, one reading it your way would say "oh, gosh, patentable material includes:
(a) machines; and
(b) processes that result in a physical transformation."
That's not what Bilski said. Bilski was explicitly dealing with processes and said that patented processes are:
(a) "processes that are tied to a particular machine; and
(b) processes that result in a physical transformation."
What you're trying to do is take the statutory categories of:"
(i)
It doesn't work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the /. effect, I'm seeing the same thing (but given the nature of the error, I would if it wasn't, so...).
Re: (Score:2)
I went ahead and RTFA'd (I hate adding apostrophe's like that, but I didn't want to be misinterpreted) and the email address is right.
Three a day (Score:2)
Post an ordered queue of all of the pending patents sorted by what the patent office perceives to be the best to worst patents. Pick the top three patents from the queue and only issue three patents a day. Allow everyone to fight over their place in the queue.
This provides a giant incentive for everyone to find prior art that invalidates or damages all of the patents in the queue in front of them. It also creates a giant incentive to provide perfect applications for truly outstanding ideas in order to convi
Note: Email address is broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. Your tax dollars hard at work.
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1 : Recipient address rejected: User unknown in relay recipient table (state 14).
But the address doesn't work. (Score:1)
So I downloaded the paper. It gives as the address:
patent_quality_comments@uspto.gov
So I fired up, sent them 6 ideas
A second or so later I get the dreaded:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently.
Sigh.
If any others care, this is what I suggested:
0. Establish a web site forum where this whole idea can be discussed.
1. Public Search for prior art.
When an application comes it, the claims and abstract are published and are publicly available. Further, there is an automated email system that use