Slashdot Mirror
Patent Office Proposes Reform
leabre writes "The NY Times (subscription required) is running a story about how the Patent and trademark office is trying to reform itself. Among some of the reforms sought, is higher fees for the initial processing fee, higher fees for more than 20 claims, higher fees for the more work the examiners have to due (lower fees for less work and fewer claims), 2000 more examiners, and required continued relevance of the examiner in their field (certification and re-certification). My favorite quote "...Mr. Rogan says excessive claims not only slow patent processing but contribute to poor-quality patents." They are trying to crack down on abundant claims and too-technical jargon which they claim overworks the examiners, reduces the quality of the patent, and other things. Worth a read."
... here.
Indeed they are probably quite qualified but they probably don't have a great deal of time. In my experience, it often seems that it's merely keyword searching of the patent database that is being done. (This is probably understandable given that some patents are written in a way that are "not understandable". :-))
When the PO responds, it's then up to the inventor to either point out why the new patent is novel (given the cited references) or to adapt it accordingly. I just feel that if more databases are searched (even via keyword only), then there's a greater chance that any prior art will be revealed.
Of course, there is the problem that "keywords" for the same idea might not match up.
I recently applied to become a patent examiner. I met one of the supervisors who encouraged me to apply, after hearing about my background. Several months later, I learn they're not hiring unless Congress gives them a bigger budget.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
WRONG, you didnt read the whole thing didin't you!
There would be a major change in the examination process. Examiners would no longer search for prior art, it would all be submitted by the applicant and the search would be preformed by a private search firm. The examiner then would then determine patentablility via that search.
There are several problems with this:
1. Patent examiners know what prior art is out there because they deal solely in a specific technology area (and are intimatly familiar with those sets of patents of record). What happens if the examiner knows of prior art not listed by the applicant? (This has yet to be addressed.)
2. There is a conflict of interest by the private search firm. They are being paid to find prior art that the applicant really doesn't want them to find.
3. You are removing a function of government by eliminating searching.
for more info, http://www.popa.org
thats the examiners union, im not a member by the way.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
What Rogan does not explain is why the fees for claims should increase exponentially with the number of fees. If your linear relationship is off, reset the slope dammit! It isn't right to punish an inventor because his invention is complicated.
Fees should probably be higher, the USPTO should be allowed to keep all its fee income and pay the examiners accordingly or supplement the research resources the examiners have. The fee probably should be higher for longer patent applications. (Yes, it is the same fee for 10 pages of description and 1000 pages of description now.)
Patents are granted unless the PTO can find a reason not to. ("A person shall be entitled to a patent unless --" 35 U.S.C. 102) Shorting the examiners of time and resources necessarily leads to bad patents getting out.
Part of the reason that patent application fees are low is that the U.S. Patent system is a "winners pay" system. After the patent is allowed you still have to pay a publication fee, an issue fee, and then maintenance fees at 3, 7, and 11 years. That way, small inventors can take their shot but not bear the full cost unless they get a patent.
What Rogan won't confront, is that the darn points system, which basically is a system where you require the hamsters to run a little faster each year, is not the right management tool (at least in a vacuum). The only thing that supplements it now are "customer satisfaction surveys". Mind you, having the USPTO be polite and responsive is ok, but please notice that QUALITY OF ISSUED PATENTS just does not enter the picture. Please, FIX THE METRICS. If it takes money, which is must, then raise fees. Don't just raise fees to hand money over to Congress though.
My manager push certain "patent pending" communication protocol spec, so I could implement the ideas on it to solve the particular problem we were dealing with. After careful examination I concluded that the patent application was bogus; there was nothing original about it, plus, it did not satisfy its own claims (recognized later, in private, by the author). It took me a week or so (I have 10+ years of experience on the field) to go through the documentation due to the redundant, hyped and pompous language used to describe the "invention". I am absolutely sure that the patent office is not going to notice anything abnormal in this application; the author will receive the appropriate incentives and recognition, the company will add one more patent to its intellectual property list and at the end of the year you may be able to see countless reports, wired infoporn included, with inflated "innovation indexes". The real, objective value added: 0. Welcome to the innovation machine.