3 ms·

That's not how novelty works. You can "claim" anything you want, but unless it's in a filing to the PTAB or a court, it counts for nothing.

amelius 4y ago
It is exactly how novelty works. It has to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade. And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Considering you apparently don't know the difference between novelty and obviousness, I think you should stop now. In particular, what "obviousness" actually means and how it's been interpreted in patent law for the past 150 years.
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  > non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade As evaluated by a patent office with a profit motive to find it non-obvious. No, I'm not joking. USPTO is funded entirely from fees.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    You are right about that. In fact, they make a profit. Of course, once you've exhausted your two rounds of rejection with them, you have to pay again for another two, or appeal it, so they make money arguing with you, too. But yeah, probably more $$$ to issue you some worthless government paper.
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  > And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button. What if it can only be produced by the tool through a highly nontrivial prompt? Prompt engineering is already a field, and there are already people selling prompts. Maybe models like dall-e are going to be considered a new kind of very high level programming language. Just because you can obtain a certain result with a C compiler (given some specific "prompt" - that is, the C source code) it doesn't mean the result isn't novel.
- rnk 4y ago
  In my experience they never try very hard to determine obviousness. I have maybe half a dozen software patents while working at big faang type companies. The patent office never rejects them no matter how abstruse, impossible to understand or obvious they are. That's a non factor in my experience.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > In my experience they never try very hard to determine obviousness With the proviso that things may have changed in the last 6 years when I haven't been working in patents: Your experience is not representative. While in Patent Litigation at Google, I looked at literally hundreds of prosecution histories, and an obviousness rejection figured in almost 100% of them. That's much more common that an anticipation rejection, i.e. ONE reference. And any lawyer will tell you that if they allow your application on the first try, you didn't ask for enough. If you tell us the numbers of the patents you worked on, I can look up the histories. Or you can, if you know that one weird trick :) (Actually, it's several weird tricks.)
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I should add here that you don't see most of the "rejections," since the lawyers don't feel like explaining them. The PTO rejects; the lawyers argue & amend; the PTO rejects again making it Final. But it's not Final! You can pay for another go-around. What you think of as a "rejection" is really Abandonment. They keep rejecting, and finally the lawyers give up. They hate doing that, because they're getting paid to get you something.

amelius 4y ago

It is exactly how novelty works. It has to be non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade. And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Considering you apparently don't know the difference between novelty and obviousness, I think you should stop now. In particular, what "obviousness" actually means and how it's been interpreted in patent law for the past 150 years.
jjoonathan 4y ago
> non-obvious to a person skilled in the trade As evaluated by a patent office with a profit motive to find it non-obvious. No, I'm not joking. USPTO is funded entirely from fees.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  You are right about that. In fact, they make a profit. Of course, once you've exhausted your two rounds of rejection with them, you have to pay again for another two, or appeal it, so they make money arguing with you, too. But yeah, probably more $$$ to issue you some worthless government paper.
nextaccountic 4y ago
> And it is certainly obvious if it can be produced by a tool using a click of a button. What if it can only be produced by the tool through a highly nontrivial prompt? Prompt engineering is already a field, and there are already people selling prompts. Maybe models like dall-e are going to be considered a new kind of very high level programming language. Just because you can obtain a certain result with a C compiler (given some specific "prompt" - that is, the C source code) it doesn't mean the result isn't novel.
rnk 4y ago
In my experience they never try very hard to determine obviousness. I have maybe half a dozen software patents while working at big faang type companies. The patent office never rejects them no matter how abstruse, impossible to understand or obvious they are. That's a non factor in my experience.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > In my experience they never try very hard to determine obviousness With the proviso that things may have changed in the last 6 years when I haven't been working in patents: Your experience is not representative. While in Patent Litigation at Google, I looked at literally hundreds of prosecution histories, and an obviousness rejection figured in almost 100% of them. That's much more common that an anticipation rejection, i.e. ONE reference. And any lawyer will tell you that if they allow your application on the first try, you didn't ask for enough. If you tell us the numbers of the patents you worked on, I can look up the histories. Or you can, if you know that one weird trick :) (Actually, it's several weird tricks.)
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I should add here that you don't see most of the "rejections," since the lawyers don't feel like explaining them. The PTO rejects; the lawyers argue & amend; the PTO rejects again making it Final. But it's not Final! You can pay for another go-around. What you think of as a "rejection" is really Abandonment. They keep rejecting, and finally the lawyers give up. They hate doing that, because they're getting paid to get you something.