3 ms·

> Oh, and a simple similarity search versus the entire web, to mark patents as invalid due to prior art or obviousness. Former USPTO patent examiner here. Pate

> Oh, and a simple similarity search versus the entire web, to mark patents as invalid due to prior art or obviousness. Former USPTO patent examiner here. Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Even when there is a perfect 102 reference (the best sort of prior art reference; the reference shows exactly what is claimed) in the patent literature [0], frequently none of the 3 similarity-based search engines I'd try [1] would return that reference. There are many reasons for this. In my previous area (water heaters and ventilation, mostly), a lot of the issue was because the software would only look at the text (and citations) and the drawings really did provide a lot of critical details that aren't easy to express in text. (I already would check the provided citations so the AI checking the citations is not a value-add in my opinion.) Patent searching is not anywhere near as easy as many people here seem to think! That's particularly true when the examiner has a very limited amount of time to search, which is every time. [0] Yes, searching the entire web in addition to patents would be better. But it's already clear that the software often doesn't return the best references from the patent databases it does search, so I'm skeptical that moving to the entire web would make that much of a difference. [1] IP.com (can work on unpublished applications), Dialog Foreign Patent Finder (can work on unpublished applications), Google Patents (if the application was already published). Each of these seem to be roughly as good as each other. For a while I'd also try the USPTO's home-grown PLUS system from the early 00s, which returned mostly irrelevant documents.

car_analogy 4y ago
> Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Neither does automatic detection of fair use - that's the point. Just crank up the false-positive rate so anything vaguely related counts as prior art. If the submitter is not happy about it, they can argue their case in a proper court.
- btrettel 4y ago
  The status quo is close to what you describe. Very few patent applications are not rejected in the first action. I did a quick Google search that indicates that over the entire USPTO, 88% of patent applications are rejected by an examiner in the first action [0]. I myself never allowed an entire application on the first action! However, it's rare that an attorney will argue that their patent should be issued in court. Almost always they argue with an examiner. A lot of people here seem to believe that the USPTO issues patents like handing out candy to children, but the reality is that a large fraction of patent applications are never granted. Mistakes happen, yes, but that has more to do with how little time the USPTO gives examiners than anything else. It's really easy to miss something. If you want to improve patent quality, tell your congressmen to increase funding at the USPTO so examiners can get more time. Nothing else will work in my view. Right now the USPTO is funded solely by fees paid by patent applicants, which isn't enough and probably distorts the incentives. [0] https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/ https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/
  - vibrio 4y ago
    ican confirm it can be more like pulling teeth than freely receiving candy. I’ve pulled a few teeth and by the time I got it, I wasn’t sure it was worth it. The uspto seems to me like the fda in that they typically have a fraction of the resources and a sub-fraction of the compensation of those on the other side of the table, yet seem to get blamed for the downfall of society based on their decisions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

car_analogy 4y ago

> Patent similarity search doesn't work that well at present. Neither does automatic detection of fair use - that's the point. Just crank up the false-positive rate so anything vaguely related counts as prior art. If the submitter is not happy about it, they can argue their case in a proper court.

btrettel 4y ago
The status quo is close to what you describe. Very few patent applications are not rejected in the first action. I did a quick Google search that indicates that over the entire USPTO, 88% of patent applications are rejected by an examiner in the first action [0]. I myself never allowed an entire application on the first action! However, it's rare that an attorney will argue that their patent should be issued in court. Almost always they argue with an examiner. A lot of people here seem to believe that the USPTO issues patents like handing out candy to children, but the reality is that a large fraction of patent applications are never granted. Mistakes happen, yes, but that has more to do with how little time the USPTO gives examiners than anything else. It's really easy to miss something. If you want to improve patent quality, tell your congressmen to increase funding at the USPTO so examiners can get more time. Nothing else will work in my view. Right now the USPTO is funded solely by fees paid by patent applicants, which isn't enough and probably distorts the incentives. [0] https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/ https://thompsonpatentlaw.com/pto-allow-rate/
- vibrio 4y ago
  ican confirm it can be more like pulling teeth than freely receiving candy. I’ve pulled a few teeth and by the time I got it, I wasn’t sure it was worth it. The uspto seems to me like the fda in that they typically have a fraction of the resources and a sub-fraction of the compensation of those on the other side of the table, yet seem to get blamed for the downfall of society based on their decisions.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]