4 ms·

I am pretty sure that no one at the patent office cares if your invention works or not.

elil17 4y ago
Not quite true. They will stop you from patenting a perpetual motion machine (typically by saying that you have not provided enough detail for someone to replicate your work).
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Except they can only do that if a patent clerk (who is usually not a physicist or engineer) can TELL it's a perpetual motion machine. After millions and millions of patents, there are bound to be a bunch that should not have been granted, even if those patent clerks are 99.9% good at their job
  - elil17 4y ago
    Patent examiners (the modern term for patent clerks) have at least a bachelors degree in a technical field relevant to the subject they review. That might be physics, engineer, chemistry, or something else. Examiners are assigned to specific art unit (e.g. an examiner with a degree in chemistry might be assigned to art unit 1710 and spend their entire career examining patents for chemicals involved in "Coating, Etching, Cleaning, and Single Crystal Growth"). I'm sure some things do get through on occasion, but examiners are most certainly subject matter experts.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      This is news to me! I'm very glad to hear this. Renews a bit of faith in the patent process.
    - manchmalscott 4y ago
      Patent examiners are being moved to a system where they are "automatically" assigned applications to review that may or may not have anything more than superficial in common. I've got a parent that's a patent examiner and they have been complaining loudly about the move because they often don't know much about what they're reviewing anymore.
      - elil17 4y ago
        That's too bad, I had not heard about this.
Enginerrrd 4y ago
That's not really true. It has to at least be plausible. Usually. One exception that comes to mind is a couple of patents some physicist working for the US Navy created that probably aren't real technology. Anti-gravity devices and the like. Why they admitted those? No idea, but possibly this was done as part of some sort of hearkening back to the cold-war-era strategy of 'waste the enemies resources on a goose chase' kind of thing.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Very interesting, TIL!
JohnFen 4y ago
They do care -- but there is no requirement that you prove it works (such as by providing a working example), so there's lots of room for error and fraud there.

Not quite true. They will stop you from patenting a perpetual motion machine (typically by saying that you have not provided enough detail for someone to replicate your work).

mrguyorama 4y ago
Except they can only do that if a patent clerk (who is usually not a physicist or engineer) can TELL it's a perpetual motion machine. After millions and millions of patents, there are bound to be a bunch that should not have been granted, even if those patent clerks are 99.9% good at their job
- elil17 4y ago
  Patent examiners (the modern term for patent clerks) have at least a bachelors degree in a technical field relevant to the subject they review. That might be physics, engineer, chemistry, or something else. Examiners are assigned to specific art unit (e.g. an examiner with a degree in chemistry might be assigned to art unit 1710 and spend their entire career examining patents for chemicals involved in "Coating, Etching, Cleaning, and Single Crystal Growth"). I'm sure some things do get through on occasion, but examiners are most certainly subject matter experts.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    This is news to me! I'm very glad to hear this. Renews a bit of faith in the patent process.
  - manchmalscott 4y ago
    Patent examiners are being moved to a system where they are "automatically" assigned applications to review that may or may not have anything more than superficial in common. I've got a parent that's a patent examiner and they have been complaining loudly about the move because they often don't know much about what they're reviewing anymore.
    - elil17 4y ago
      That's too bad, I had not heard about this.

Enginerrrd 4y ago

That's not really true. It has to at least be plausible. Usually. One exception that comes to mind is a couple of patents some physicist working for the US Navy created that probably aren't real technology. Anti-gravity devices and the like. Why they admitted those? No idea, but possibly this was done as part of some sort of hearkening back to the cold-war-era strategy of 'waste the enemies resources on a goose chase' kind of thing.

macinjosh 4y ago
Very interesting, TIL!

JohnFen 4y ago

They do care -- but there is no requirement that you prove it works (such as by providing a working example), so there's lots of room for error and fraud there.