US PTO should make AN ALTERNATE directory of silly application filed.
Claim with out proper invention claim needs to be rejected with three - six months
PTO can even grade the patent awarded and can even rank them.
In my opinion, patents should not be used as an insurance to hang around in the system. The raise in patent application is due to this.
PTO should ask for a live demo to prove the efficacy in the PoC.
The underlying problem is that the law schools and working lawyers somehow have agreed that there exists something called "intellectual property", and that this includes patents (which give a right to deny use) and copyright (which deny a right to publish), among other things.
A patent can PROTECT a thing, the thing being property; but the patent itself is not property. A patent is an administrative decision under the law. A copyright can not protect any thing; it can protect only the COPYING (not possession) of an expression EXCLUDING by law any merely physical thing. Likewise, a copyright itself is not property; it is an administrative decision under the law. The fact that a RIGHT can be transferred does not imply that there is property involved: Parents can transfer custody of a child, but this does not make the chils a kind of property.
As the PTO author points out, the low quality of modern patent applications is because applicants are trying to buy "intellectual property" from the PTO(like bandwidth from FCC), rather than requesting that the PTO protect their innovative discoveries for a limited time.
There is no such thing as "intellectual property". The very idea may be misunderstood by lawyers, but it is analogous to "imaginary reality".
It's simple: The Patent Office does not reward Examiners for quality work. An Examiner gets about 4-8 hours to complete the entire examination process; it's not enough. Instead, they do the best they can in limited time, and Dudas pretends that it is a class of applicants that are the problem. This is false.
I was a U.S. Patent Examiner in the late 1990s, and since then went into private practice as a Patent Agent.
It?s remarkable to me that someone who is supposedly intelligent, Dudas, can?t recognize the basic problem with the entire Office: Examiners are not rewarded for doing quality work. Instead, they get a few hours to do an extremely complicated job and are yelled at when it isn?t "good enough" or when they don?t work every weekend to make everything perfect.
Will and do some applicants abuse such a system? Sure. But blaming a small number of applicants for the problems of the Office is disingenuous at best, and intentionally misleading from the actual problems at worst.
Good quality examination will eliminate bad quality patents. Good quality examination will not happen by placing artificial restrictions on the front end of the process (limiting the number of claims, or RCEs or continuations). It will only punish prolific applicants.
If you want to get rid of "bad" applications, change the way examination is done, particularly the way Examiners are rewarded for their work. If you keep the system that was there when I was there in the late 1990s (which was also there decades before I arrived), nothing will change.
It's a difficult problem to fix, but no one wants to take it head on. Instead Dudas makes dumb comments that are off subject, misinterpreted by anti-patent types and changing the subject from the real problems at the Office.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.