Posts Tagged: "patent searches"

The other reason AOP has been so success is also eluded to in Phelps’ quote above as well. Article One runs a “human network.” When I asked Cheryl what made Article One so successful she immediately responded “our researchers.” Indeed, their researchers are what makes the system work, and they have well over 1 million people registered as researchers and well over 23,000 active researchers who routinely submit prior art. These researchers are located all across the world, with roughly one-thrid in the United States, roughly another one-third in Europe, about 10% in Japan and the rest spread elsewhere around the globe. In addition to this geographic diversity, nearly 50% of researchers hold advanced degrees.

All too often inventors feel that the assistance of a patent attorney is really not necessary. That is an opinion shared by many unfortunately. It is not unfortunate for the patent attorney really, but rather it is unfortunate for those who hold the belief because invariably those who represent themselves obtain rights that are so narrow that they are practically useless. Recently I have had the occasion to be contacted by several independent inventors who did file their own nonprovisional patent applications and are now facing a First Office Action that rejects all the claims. A First Office Action that rejects all claims is not uncommon, but these applications have little or no useful discussion of the invention so there will be little or nothing anyone can do to help them ever achieve a patent. A bad patent application results in either an extremely narrow patent or no patent at all. All that time, money and energy wasted. These inventors, who are unfortunately the norm for those who represent themselves, may well have had an invention that could be protected but through a faulty application will now likely never receive a patent on their invention.

At what point does an idea take enough form to be considered an invention that can be protected? First, it is completely correct to say that ideas cannot be patented. Having said that, it is equally correct to say that every invention starts with an idea. The patent laws in the United States differentiate between a mere idea and conception. When you have a conception you have an invention, and the easiest way to define the term “conception” in lay terms is as an idea plus some knowledge regarding how to bring the idea into being, whether your idea is a compound, a product, a process or unique software.

Are you a patent attorney or patent agent setting up your own firm? Are you presently at a firm but considering splitting off and going it on your own? There are a great many things that you need to consider and have in order, from a docketing system that will let you sleep easy to malpractice insurance to engaging clients and firing clients to how to handle un-earned client funds held in trust. Here are just a few thoughts.

Recently, I was working on a patent search requiring me to look in areas of patent art relating to male underclothing (a very popular area for patenting, as you may guess) when I came across this little number: US Patent Application 12/071,878, which is titled “Scrotal Support Garment.” This application serves as a great example of rejection through non-patent literature. When you apply for a patent, the examiner can use any information available to the public to reject your application – not just patents. In this case, the examiner had an easy time finding a picture of Borat in the swimwear and was gracious enough to include several pictures in the rejection.

Article One Partners (AOP), the world’s largest patent research community, earlier today announced that the company has achieved a significant milestone — more than $2 million dollars in financial incentives to its global research community. This milestone comes 11 months to the day from when Article One announced that they had reached the $1 million award milestone.

I have found it helpful to think about patent classifications as being large buckets with subclassifications being little buckets within the larger classification buckets. There are currently more than 450 classifications and over 150,000 subclasses. According to the USPTO, “A class generally delineates one technology from another. A Subclass delineates processes, structural features, and functional features of subject matter encompassed with the scope of the class.” It is also important to realize that although every patent has only one primary classification (class and subclass) it may include others as applicable to the patent.

For example, does a hair dryer with integrated radio, beer bottle opener, shaving cream dispenser that floats sound marketable? Perhaps as a gag gift maybe, but the addition of random features for the sake of obtaining a patent is not usually wise. I’ve seen terribly broad disclosures filed for an inventor with one extraordinarily specific embodiment. Right away I can tell what is happening. The patent attorney (or patent agent) is drafting the disclosure so that at least one claim, no matter how narrow, can be obtained. Unfortunately, it does not typically make sense to layer on specifics unless those specifics contribute to marketability, and in most cases layer after layer of detailed specifics only makes the claim narrow and less valuable. So if you are going to try and get around prior art to obtain a patent make sure the specifics added will provide an advantage.

I believe it is time for the PTO to jump aboard the ship of the future and use document and data search techniques now being employed in the litigation and national security arenas. Many tools (software approaches) exist that multiply effort and get smarter with each go around. I believe these tools should have a place at the PTO. Search techniques that build on what others have done and that search not just publications, but file histories as well, would give examiners a leg up when trying to assess patentability and truly understand what references can and should be cited to demonstrate. Machine translation of foreign language art would also be very useful. The abstracts just do not provide enough for an Examiner to go on for foreign references. And, in many areas, foreign art is the best.

There are a number of things that you need to know about the invention and patent process that can help you focus your efforts and know what obstacles lay in front of you. Once you conceive (idea + game plan) you will need to be diligent and not let any grass grow under your feet as you move forward toward defining and experimenting with your invention. Generally speaking, conception without diligence can cause the first person who invents to lose the right to the invention assuming someone else invents after you but files their patent application first. So, the moral of the story is once you have your idea and the game plan move swiftly. The law realizes that so-called “garage inventors” cannot quit their day job, but the law will also require proof that you are consistently moving forward and not shelving the invention for periods of time in favor of other endeavors.

I frequently am told by inventors that they have searched the marketplace and cannot find anything like their invention. I am also frequently told that they have done a patent search and cannot find anything that remotely resembles what they have come up with. While there are many reasons for not finding prior art, just because you do not find prior art does not mean that there is no prior art that needs to be considered. In fact, it would be extremely rare (if not completely impossible) for there to be an invention that does not have any relevant prior art. Said another way, unless you have invented something on the level of an Einstein-type invention there is prior art. Even the greatest American inventor, Thomas Edison, faced prior art for the vast majority of his inventions.

The trouble with explaining what prior art is stems from the fact that everyone already thinks they know what it is. Conceptually we do not want to issue patents for inventions that are not considered new, which seems fair enough. The trouble is defining what is “new.” For now, let’s just say that prior art must be a reference of some type (i.e., a patent or a printed publication) or some type of knowledge or event (i.e., public knowledge, public use or a sale of a product) that demonstrates that the invention in question is not new.

Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is “old” or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention.

So how do you decide whether you have a mere idea or a conception that is on the road to a full blown invention? That is a difficult question to answer and one that has few, if any, bright line rules or useful generalizations. What I would say, however, is this: If you can sketch out the invention on paper (in the case of a device) or list the steps (in the case of a process) you likely have something that is tending toward the invention side of the idea-invention continuum. When you are at the point where you can describe the uniqueness of your idea in comparison to other patents and pending applications then you are again tilting heavily toward the invention side of the idea-invention continuum.