How Will Electronic Patents Affect the USPTO? 57
4/3PI*R^3 asks: "The US Patent Office has brought into full production its Electronic Patent Application Filing System (EFS). With so many patents being issued so quickly (161,000 last year alone) how will this affect the application process? Will more patent applications be submitted since there is one less barrier to filing? Will the increased accessiblity make the USPTO more selective in assigning patents? Read thePress Release and visit the Patent Electronic Business Center. Which department of the US Federal Government is the most technologically advanced from a customer service stand point? The USPTO is now searchable via the internet and applications can be submitted and tracked via the internet. It seems to me that most USPTO customer service functions now have some sort of internet access. Is it possible to completely do business with the USPTO over the internet?"
First..... (Score:1)
Here's an idea...Patent the EFS! (Score:1)
Or then they could use the money... (Score:1)
One-Click Patenting! (Score:1)
Does this count as prior art?
I wonder... (Score:1)
Re:It might work the other way... (Score:3)
Look at what happened to USENET when it was opened up to AOL and such...
I agree wholeheartedly that this will increase the number of patent requests submitted, and thuis increase the number of (frivolous) patents granted. At this point, the USPTO doesn't do even a passable job at reviewing technology patents - how can anyone think that will suddenly change when the patent apps double or triple in number? (hypothetically of course - it remains to be seen just how much this will affect the #s - the above is simply an educated guess
What should have been done LONG ago is outsource the review of patent applications to educated third-parties (such as certain university professors, etc...), especially in cases where the USPTO doesn't have the expertise or understanding to make a "good" decision. Right now in these circumstances, they grant the patent and wait for the courts to invalidate it. Complete wrong approach, IMHO.
This would, of course, lengthen the time necessary for a complete review of the patents applied for - so opening the floodgates for submission isn't the right thing to do either...it'll just make the queue so long it'll become unmanagable. So...instead of INCREASING the number of patents that get applied for, let's DECREASE it. Only allow any individual (or corporation or whatever) to apply for a certain number of patents in a given year...let's say a nice low number, like 5-10. That would make people THINK before they apply - hopefully cutting down on the frivolous patent submissions.
Of course, I could be wrong - I'm only on my first cup of coffee here
Patent filing via CVS (Score:1)
BTW, I hereby declare patent on this idea, so you can't have it.
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:2)
It's not clear whether Unisys's patent covers decompression as well as compression, apparently they won't commit themselves either way. But it is possible that you cannot view information on what software patents might be used to attack your business because they are available only in a patented format. This illustrates another good reason to oppose software patents - they block the free exchange of information by encumbering file formats.
How does this affect the USPTO? It may be an indicator of things to come. Given that they are using Word documents at least for some things, and given that Microsoft has started patenting its *file formats* (which the USPTO is happy to allow), it might not be too long before patent information is not viewable without a patent licence from Microsoft.
BTW: the UK Patent Office launched its own consulatation on software patents, parallelling the European Commision's consultation. Go to http://www.patent.gov.uk/snews/notices/softcons.h
Patent the patent process (Score:1)
No, it increases the insanity (Score:2)
This is nonsense, it does this no more than electronic trading relieves the small investor from their perenial role as victim of the profession trader. So far, patents have proved to be the most successful line of attack against open source. Easier filing just makes it easier to attack.
Equality has been the rallying point of the modern enlightened state, and we should achieve it wherever and whenever possible.
Good, then you must agree completely with the proposition that we all deserve equal access to ideas, regardless of who won the race to the patent office
--
Unfortunately (Score:2)
It would have been. Unfortunately for you all, I patented the process of applying for a patent over the Internet, so you must all pay me royaltees. Even more if you want to use my patented "1-Click Patent Application"
How secure is the filing system. (Score:2)
How secure is it? SSL?
How quickly are the applications moved offline or to a secure area where crackers couldn't get at them?
Which takes precedent the paper or electronic filings?
How are you timestamping them?
By submission time for electronic and postmarked date for the paper?
This just screams "BREAK ME".
Re:How secure is the filing system. (Score:2)
This still doesn't save them from crack attempts.
USPTO Infringes patents? (Score:1)
If so what are the rules on this. Could this be used to point out the absurdity of some of the patents.
Or is it a situation where the government is allowed to use any patent for wahtever it wants.
"USPTO infringes HyperGlobalMegaTechs patent on Cathode Ray tube to Retina image transfer"
No big thang . . . but a good thang (Score:2)
No more. Nowadays, your filings are given a filing date based upon the day the mailing is given to the post office (even if the Office never gets it), you can consult with examiners aided by facsimile and other transmissions, and you can research patentability reasonably in most art areas from just about anywhere. (Although I still prefer to do it the old-fashioned way.)
Electronic filing is simply the natural extension of this trend. The only difficulty to date was resolving issues of authentication and signature no longer relevant today. Since most cities have at least one post office open until midnight, the primary advantage of electronic filing is just the convenience of examination and storage for the Office. They will automatically receive their documents in condition for storage in an automatic system. Thus, examiners will be able to manipulate and search the document promptly, run it through various tools that facilitate examination, and otherwise take steps to assure that bureaucratic formalities are satisfied.
Doing Business with the Patent Office (Score:2)
If you've ever seen a file wrapper (or file history -- which includes all of the interactions between the Patent Office and the applicant/attorney) you'll see an immense number of papers back & forth. Because of the importance of having documentation (the Patent Office regularly loses files & asks you to send them your copy) I expect that most people will continue to have paper files. Sorry guys.
On the other hand, the electronic filing should considerably reduce the overhead for scanning. Right now, in addition to the paper copies, all documents that are sent to the PTO are scanned in (they spent an immense amount of money on OCR) by PTO personell, and placed in an electronic copy of the file. From now on, the applicant will be providing both the electronic and paper versions. Not much of a change.
Or, as they say, the king is dead, long live the king. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
Thalia
This doesn't matter (Score:5)
Each patent examiner needs a certain number of "points" per pay period. (I'm intentionally keeping this simple, patent lawyers feel free to jump in).
Scoring goes like this:
Early approval: 2 points.
Denial: 1 point, plus you have to go through a bunch of crap if they appeal, which wastes time and earns you zero points.
This is all verbatim from the patent lawyer at my company (which I will not disclose). We're aggressively patenting common sense, and I'm helping. Her philosophy is: "if they'll let you, do it. if you don't, the competition will".
i agree with her. i've got options to protect. the problem is the aforementioned scoring system. if they changed that, stupid patents would come to a screeching halt.
The US PTO is a revenue service (Score:5)
[stock rant on the subject]
Patents are not about who is right, or who is first; patents are about who can sue.
The US PTO is a money-making service for the government, and this fact is why it operates as it does.
There is a misconception that it is the central duty of the PTO to form a blockade against granting patents. The PTO can and will block applications where there's heavy similarity with prior art or existing patents, but that's really just a guideline to using the service, not the core function.
The PTO's purpose is to grant patents for a fee, and it's wholly suited to do so.
The application vetting process of the PTO is a cost center for the operation of the PTO. This is akin to saying that customer service is a cost center for the operation of AT&T. It is required, but they'll cut costs as much as they can get away with.
To fix the patent application vetting process, two things must happen:
At the minimum, if the PTO would publish the abstract for each patent application at the time of filing, then third parties could submit "helpful" arguments against controversial applications. The PTO shouldn't publish the details, just the abstract; the PTO can then weigh obviousness against challenges without incurring the costs of doing all the searching themselves.
Once a patent has been granted, the Patent Office does not get involved in disputes; that is a matter for the courts.
[end of stock rant on the subject]
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:4)
Mmmmm...not really. You still have to pay the patent application fee. You still have to pay for a prior art search, and for a patent lawyer to help you get your application into a form which is acceptable to the patent office. So, the "little citizen" is still pretty much only going to be able to file a few things, whereas people/organizations with money will now find it much easier to file immense numbers of applications with the USPTO.
I really question the wisdom of setting up this interface w/o making sure that the back end (the examination process) is robust enough to process these applications with a high-quality result. I foresee the patent examiners getting even farther behind than they are now, and letting things slip even worse than they do now to try and relieve some of the pressure.
I dunno (Score:2)
Sounds like the USPTO may finally achieve "business at the speed of stupidity".
It might work the other way... (Score:3)
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:1)
Seems to me that the only way this mess is going to get fixed is if other countries do the right thing, and force (through the UN or international trade treaties) the US to abandon the frivolous patents. There's no way it's going to happen from within.
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:1)
Unless, and I think this is possible, they're bringing this template to the applicants to take the load off the people inside the USPTO, whose job it is to put every patent application received into the stupid template. This way, they save themselves some work.
I know this seems backwards and inefficient, but trust me - I work at IBM. We know this shit.
Not so good so far... (Score:4)
It's basically templates integrated within Word. So far run into the issue of the user has to install the software the,self or it doesn't work correctly. If I install as Admin it borks it up...
On forms (Score:2)
It's been possible to apply for a trademark online for some time now. That process works reasonably well, but office actions, even for trademarks, are still completely paper-oriented. I'm probably going to have to call the PTO to find out what happened to my reply to a trademark office action last month. It hasn't shown up in the online status yet.
Re:This doesn't matter (Score:1)
You take the examining hours for the period being considered (BiWeek, Quarter, Fiscal Year) Which is all time you can't write off for other things (like leave, and various "non-examining time" activities you can eke out) and divide by your balanced disposals to get your actual Hours per balanced disposal. Then You divide this by your "goal". multiply by 1000 to yield your percent achievment. Over the last 4 quarters, of your Achievment falls between 90 and 95% youare rated "Marginal" and have one quarter to avoid a written warning. Less than 90% is unsatisfactory; you get a written warning and have 90 days to get at or above 95% for the year; if not, then "Adverse action" is taken, which is ALWAYS being fired.
So, if you have a new application and you issue it, you get two counters (It is both new and Disposal) with little time to charge; If you really fight a case, even writing extra rejections because you find better prior art,thake the case to appeal, the appicant appeals the PTO's board to the courts, and it comes back you still got only the two counts, one when you make the first action, the second when you send it to the Appeals Board, and thats it. You eat all the hours. Or, perhaps, you just say "The Hell with it; I'll let the applicant make a nominal amendment not really limiting the claims you previously rejected, and just allow it.
Given the fact that, for a Journeyman Primary examiner (GS-14, Full Signatory Authority)your time percase must average perhaps 10-12 hours for ALL the work on the case from searching, writting the office action, analyzing responses and all kinds of nitpicking bullshit that are clerical in nature, what do you think happens to the case? where you can't find just the refernce you need to make the case?
Patent laws are boring... (Score:3)
I think the broader outlook is that "intellectual property", as we know it, is dead. Patents were good for the steam engine age, when a patented boiler weighted 100 tons. And copyrights were meaningful only when "copying" meant performing macroscopic changes on a physical medium.
Information today has become too fluid and too mobile. What the current intellectual property concept says is that "the wind is not allowed to blow across this barbed wire fence". In other words, Yes, what I'm doing is illegal, but you can't catch me. An unenforceable law is not a law.
Re:I can hardly wait... (Score:1)
[insert media sensationalist rant]
HACKERS Patent Air
In what the FBI has labelled a blatant act of terrorism, computer hackers have corrupted the US Patent Office computers with hundreds of thousands of hoax patents. Spokesman for the USPTO, Mr Smith stated "it's a mess. There's no way of telling the real patents from the fake ones as they all look the same, sound the same and most likely would have been approved." The USPTO is considering nullifying all patents for the last ten years because of the catistrophic affect this has had on the department.
Spokesperson for the authorities, Mr Hall calls this latest hacker attack "a blatant attack on democracy. These hackers are terrorists, they have ingeniously disguised the fake patents as real ones". Early reports suggest that the entire catastrophe started when a USPTO employee inadvetantly opened a computer virus contained in an email.
Authorities are urging everyone to take precautions and never open email with the subject title "5cr1p7 k1dd135 0wnz j00". Hall said to us earlier today "they are obviously geniuses, devoted to lives of crime. I wouln't be surprised if they are ex-KGB operatives. We think they might be linked to recent attempts to steal nuclear weapons." as yet the authorities have not been able to decipher the cryptic email title.
[end sensationalist media rant]
AcidDan
I can see it now... (Score:1)
Electronic submission means applications will be stored on a publicly available server for at least some small amount of time. Public accessibility means that sooner or later someone will see if they can exploit a vulnerability in the system and change an application.
Personally, I wish I could've caught the one-click patent doing something like this and had it registered in my name instead...
Then again, maybe I'll just save my cracking prowess for when a patent on cold fusion comes up... Buahahahaha....
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:2)
who can afford to sink a few hundred dollars into a dead-end pursuit
Minor correction here: it doesn't cost a few hundred dollars, but a few thousands of dollars (filing fees, prior art searches, lawyers fees, etc). It ain't cheap, and frankly, very few patents are worth what they cost (but the few that are make up for all the others...that's why big corporations spend the millions a year that filing hundreds of patents costs).
My patent.. (Score:1)
An Undocumented Feature of the Electronic Patents (Score:2)
" Alright -- our friends in the USPTO have finally installed our requested feature. You might notice on the Electronic Patent Application Page that there is a small box labeled: OBAJPS. This stands for Overly Broad and Just Plain Stupid. As per our agreement with USPTO, whenever we submit a patent and this box is checked we our automatically granted the patent. I think that . . . "
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:1)
Hey, they should use (Score:2)
I can hardly wait... (Score:1)
Maybe the can use the money they save... (Score:2)
When do I have to pay a processing fee?
A processing fee is required when applicant requests voluntary publication of an application pending on November 29, 3000, when applicant requests publication of a redacted copy of the application and when applicant requests republication of an application that has been previously published.
Or maybe they have a new procedure fo extending patent applications.
Re:this is better (Score:1)
The same as always, only more so (Score:3)
Re:My patent.. (Score:1)
You have been charged $1000 for this service.
Oops (Score:2)
Announcing 1-Click Patent Approval (Score:1)
Re:Announcing 1-Click Patent Approval (Score:2)
Have you just overheard someone's innovative idea while waiting at the airport?
Do you want to get in there before they do?
Then Patent-Now!(TM) is for you.
Also introducing Litigate-Now!(TM) Where you can quickly sue the ass off your competitors for 'patent-violation' from the comfort of your Limo (or hot-tub).
EFS (Score:1)
Royalties for me please! (Score:2)
In Section 42 of Patent Code 69, it clearly states:
Mudge42 holds the patent on questions regarding the Internet and its affect on patents. This also holds true for one-click questioning without using the preview button on Slashdot and other forum-type web sites.
Don't worry though, I have currently having a sale on these questions. Please send $19.95 to my paypal account to avoid any penalty fees.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re:Questions (Score:1)
Spam the patent office! (Score:2)
If they grant your autogen'ed patents, well, sue the world (you owe me royalties on your
coherent thought...)
Re:Doing Business with the Patent Office (Score:1)
http://www.mathmlconference.org/Talks/karleen/
suggests that the patent office uses Mathematica at some point to convert mathematical notation into MathML. And particularly that this in being done for web-based systems:
"...distinct benefits for end users of the patents
database, particularly those interested in web-based review of patent data."
So it seems that allowing people to view the contents of the database is in the works; probably transmissions to and from the patent office will eventually be web-enabled at some point.
Atlantic Works v. Brady 107 U.S. 192, 200 (1882) (Score:2)
Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:5)
Making the patent-submission process an electronic one removes one more barrier, but that's a good thing: it helps the little citizen compete on the same playing field that the corporations have historically reserved for themselves. It lets us get a little piece of that pie and grows the pie at the same time.
Patents do have their downside, and the Supreme Court has recognized that fact for the last hundred years. Said the Court, "It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country." But for too long, it's been inanimate (and constitutionally unjustifiable) corporations who've drawn all the benefits from that system. If we abolish it and embark on a new more enlightened path some day, then great, but in the mean time, let's not screw ourselves at our own expense and not at the expense of the corrupt.
Equality has been the rallying point of the modern enlightened state, and we should achieve it wherever and whenever possible. Electronic filing is yet another step towards equality for all, and I applaud it.
Frivolous Patents (Score:1)
Re:My patent.. (Score:1)
Sure there is prior art, but is the USPTO really going to sue me and say that they granted a bunch of patents that make no logical sense? Plus now whenever they grant a patent that is dumb, I get to sue them, it ought to make them start spending more time reviewing how relevant or needed a patent truly is.
Anyways, it is just a thought.
Decreasing barriers Decreasing quality (Score:1)
What would Dilbert say? (Score:1)
So what does this mean for all of us free thinkers? It means expect to be taken to court for more and more frivolous lawsuits which have no basis in reality, but which were rushed through the electronic system.
Didn't we learn something from the Amish (besides how to churn butter
Instead of churning out more patents daily, the Patent Office should be working to churn out quality patents. Period. None of this gene patenting crap, or patenting on one-click shopping. I mean, come on, you can't patent common sense (Well, unless you go to the PTO, in which case for a proper fee you can)
Oh well. I wonder when someone will patent a Republic and then sue the US.
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:2)
The problem is not solved by letting more patents be written, but to prevent so many from being written in the first place. The government intentionally underfunds the patent office, as well as the FDA and some other agencies, so that basically in the end the wealthiest can have things the way they like it. The patent office is grossly understaffed, so even requests to repeal current patents take forever to process. We don't want to simplify the process. We need to be much more discreet in approvals. The patent office is also staffed by very non-technical people. Think about it: if someone wants to patent a gizmo in the medical field, shouldn't the patent approval officer chosen be well-versed in the medical field?
Re:My patent.. (Score:1)
Re:Decreasing barriers increases equality (Score:2)
It may be an improvement, but it's hardly equality.
Re:Not so good so far... (Score:3)
Surely this system could (should) be web-based?
Then it would be available to many more people, not relying on a particular software combination.
It would also be possible to do some basic validation (to make sure the form is filled out correctly) before the patent application is submitted (the Patent Office likely gets many badly filled out forms).