Slashdot Mirror
Inside Look at Patent Examination
KingFatty writes "This article written by a former patent examiner describes patent application as a matter of luck when it comes to the competency of the examiner. "Every examiner starts with his or her first patent application after receiving just two weeks of training at the USPTO Patent Academy, where he or she learns the basics of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Will your patent application be examined by that newly recruited examiner? If so, will the examiner's supervisor (supervisory patent examiner or SPE)[be] sufficiently skilled in the art in which the patent application is classified?" Gives insights as to the problems with the US Patent and Trademark System."
Why aren't patents exposed to peer review, like academic articles are? The invention (if it is) will be protected by the patent pending laws while it's reviewed.
It's quite clear to me that most of the problems in our patent system were caused by Albert Einstein.
Now patent clerks everywhere do half-assed work, their brains busy trying to come up with the next great theory of time, gravity, and light.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
I feel the largest problem with the patent system is allowing people to patent "ideas" without a working prototype. I think this can and will lead to intuitive innovations being passed over because the manufacturer would have to pay patent fees to the "inventor". Total BS.
If the "inventor" didn't have the balls to put his/her money where their mouth is, then they don't deserve shit! Let's not punish companies willing to put forth money into a great idea by making them pay some lazy ass moron who payed a small patent fee to patent his idea of clapping to turn on a light.
From the article:
"The salaries of entry level patent examiners presently range from $32,819 to $70,959. Overtime is strongly encouraged after several months of experience is accrued, and it is not unusual for a junior examiner with three or four years experience to make more than $100,000 annually with overtime and bonuses."
Sounds like they're trying pretty hard to entice people to become patent officers, because the pay scale seems abnormally high for a governmental job. Starting salaries up to $70k per year? Geeez.... Or maybe the salary range is required because the job sucks so much.
Then why the hell do companies have to write 'Patents Pending' on their products for decades? You'd think that incompetency of this sort would speed up the process.
"Did a search on Google for some of the keywords in their description, but only a few thousand webpages came up... Patent Granted, next!"
Mr. Smith: I've come to patent a theory. I call it "Smith's Theory of Relativity".
Einstein thumbs through the papers.
Enistein knocks out Mr. Smith, and runs.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
When we graduated my wife received a job offer to work as a patent examiner. Despite the fact that she has a degree in computer science I do not believe it would prevent absurd and obvious invention patents from going through the system. As best as I can tell the examiners are limited to prior patent applications and official publications in searching for prior art. Little room seems to be reserved for common sense. Quite thankfully she did not accept the job offer because I didn't want to move to D.C. and the pay wasn't that great for someone with that degree.
I wonder what kind of technology patent examiners use. Probably ancient PCs running Internet Explorer 3.0 and a cached version of AltaVista from 1994.
Every examiner starts with his or her first patent application after receiving just two weeks of training
So, what is the turnover rate at the USPO?
What percentage of the examiners are seasoned examiners of patent applications etc.
What percentage of the examiners have worked there for less than 2 years?
Howdy Doodly Doo!
Anybody want some Toast?
I was talking to a lawyer about patent applications once . . . his comment was that they are always rejected on the first round, so it was best to actually not submit all documentation in the first round so that there would be additional documentation to submit during the second round. His claim was that patent employees are overworked and often underskilled (because they are required to have such a broad breadth of knowledge) and if they don't know a lot about the particular technology, they would reject the application based on some general ground rules . . . if you gave a lot of extra data, etc. in the resubmittal it would often go through. I don't know if this is a common practice and IANAL, but I think its more than a bit sad that a lawyer would have such a cynical view . . . and perhaps even more sad if the system is actually deserving of this cynical view.
Sorry to disagree with the article, but the best way to get an inside look at a patent examener is with a blunt object.
Yeah, I know its a hard job.. but even the worst fuck-up gets it right once in a while.
The solution is simple. Pay the experts what they are worth to do the job. Just like they should with teachers. Its never going to happen.
There is way too much money to be made in having IP control over an uneducated populace.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
One thing I've thought about recently as a help to the patent problem is putting a cap on the number of patents granted each year. If only 25,000 patents are awarded per year (for example), that would in theory cut down on the number of crap patents. Atleast they would have to think a little longer about what really deserves a patent, and many people would be discouraged from filing if they knew there was a good chance it wouldn't get approved. Just an idea...
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
- US Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
Good luck getting that changed anytime soon.
What?
In the early days of the patent office, they used to require a working model. I think they should return to this requirement. In my experience, ideas themselves, which can be patented, aren't nearly as valuable as the implementation of those ideas. This would probably also cut down on a lot of bogus patent submissions.
The real problems for other manufacturers are the submarine patents, where the inventor keeps the application alive for 15 or so years, tweaking the application. Since there is an application pending, all other applications for the same thing get denied. An example would be single-chip-microprocessors. Since everyone in the industry tried to patent it and were denied, they assumed that it was not a patentable idea. Big surprise when the submarine came up to sink the industry. When I went to a police academy, we were taught never to assume anything. The saying goes, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.
The big problem for the software industry is that there have been enterprising crooks filing patents based on obscure theses and books, hoping that no one notices it was plagiarized. The patent examiners are not stopping duplicate patents now, they want the user fees, and to the devil (err the courts) with the details.
Now that the Patent Office has kindly placed a lot of patents into their database; they should begin the process of writing programs which help them to eliminate patents based upon (if nothing else) their documentation.
;-)
:-)
I would think the rejection of Patents would fall into a few categories: 1)Bad Spelling, 2)Bad Grammar, 3)Bad Idea. Once these are past - THEN - the object could be compared against pre-existing documents.
I know there are probably millions of documents which might match a new document but, like Google, they could be pared down based upon how closely they look like another invention. Google has how many servers and how many pages to look at and decide upon? Yet you get feedback in only a few seconds. Why not base how the PTO works on Google's model? The PTO could even sell priority for first consideration to companies.
Truly though, since every invention has to be written up, and since we already know that millions of pages can (and are) rejected by a good search engine - this is what the PTO really needs.
Which brings up the question: How many patents are filed for items which are not really in that category? Like an idea for a game which might overlap how something is done in the real world. Would that patent be enforceable because it was already given out? Or does the fact that the patent is filed in different categories mean that you can patent something which has already been patented - but in a different category? So a toothbrush used by a robotic servant (and is a part of the robot itself) can be patented separately from a regular, toothbrush which is held in the hand?
If the former - then that cuts down on the number of patents which has to be searched. Otherwise, all of the patents have to be searched. Which is why it becomes so hard to determine the merits of a given patent. A good search engine though - could shave a lot of time off of how long it would take to determine the merits of any given patent.
This does not, however, eliminate the need for people who are smart enough to know that a flashlight is still a flashlight. No matter if it is called a flashlight or an object which emits a beam of light. This too (the phrase "an object which emits light") should become a part of the search engine. Or, in other words, you create a relational database which relates single words to phrases so the search engine can make better judgement calls.
Just a few thoughts.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
The people protect patented IP rights by funding the PTO and courts in which IP cases are tried. Patents ought to be filed with a tax on their owners as a percentage of returns on the IP. So there's no barrier to filing, but cashing in on the protected asset pays for its protection. The owner's IP assets:income ratio would be applied to the IP, and say a 0.01% tax would be applied to the IP's share of the revenue. The taxes would be spent on a small administration of patent process managers. The actual examinations and tests would be outsourced to certified private American engineering firms. Thus the engine of American ingenuity would be harnessed to drive around the seatbelts, airbags and ABS brakes of the entire infrastructure. Until then, the IP holders are getting a free ride.
--
make install -not war
Note to self, submit patents in 24-point font.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Interestingly enough, Einstein was influenced by patents he saw. You see, at the time everyone was submitting patents for ways to syncronize clocks. This led Einstein to think about the nature of time and light and such, thus leading to special relativity. I'm sure someone can post a link or more information.