I'm quite interested in the subject of patents, and read enough about that. From what I've read about US patents examiners, it's not a problem of them not being

I'm quite interested in the subject of patents, and read enough about that. From what I've read about US patents examiners, it's not a problem of them not being smart. The problem is that they aren't tasked with assessing if a patent claim is "obvious to a person skilled in the art" - like they should be - but only with finding out if there is published prior art. So, to use your example: Fire shouldn't have been patentable, because it's a natural phenomenon. But if you're the first one to discover how to light a fire faster, using a bow, then definitely you should be able to patent that. In this context, one-click is neither fire nor a new way to light it. It's more like a situation where everybody is already using fire to cook freshwater fish, but nobody wrote in a recognized publication that you can also use it to cook seawater fish; and now you come and patent that.