Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Patents United States Your Rights Online

USPTO Asking For Ideas To Enhance Patent Quality 42

Posted by timothy from the deny-randomly-like-insurance-companies dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USPTO Asking For Ideas To Enhance Patent Quality More

USPTO Asking For Ideas To Enhance Patent Quality

Comments Filter:
  • Farenheit 451 is what patents need by now. Or the civilization, because one will end burning the other to the roots, you choose.

  • ...on issuing low-quality patents. The USPTO owes me millions.

  • Hold on, I've got a perfect solution but I need to patent it first.

  • 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.

    • I think the main people here will be companies clogging the system with more junk to delay and manipulate.
  • I think it would help a lot if the USPTO would contact authors of the patents and papers listed in the "prior art" section and ask for their input. The problem the patent officers seem to have is that they are clueless as to what is obvious to a practitioner of a specific domain. Well, those prior art links usually give you a set of pointers to some people who are specialists in the area. They're precisely the ones you might want to consult and who might have an interest in patents in that area. Unfortu
    • that puts to much burden on the public. If someone makes something and its been in common use for 20 years who is responsible for continuously monitoring the requests to make sure it isn't patented later when it makes no sense?

      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.

    • 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

  • 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

  • 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.

    • 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)

        by adolf ( 21054 )

        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

        • 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

  • How about you leave the patents to things that are actually patentable, and not processes, or ways of doing things?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Theaetetus ( 590071 )

      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)

        by eqisow ( 877574 )
        I think he was saying that this needs to change, especially in the area of software. Why do you ask?

        • 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.

          • 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.

            • 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)

  • I tried emailing a suggestion and got: 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).

    • Possibly the /. effect, I'm seeing the same thing (but given the nature of the error, I would if it wasn't, so...).

      • 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.

  • 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

  • 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).

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond

Close