Well, unless your ideas are published in a widely read media outlet, or actually patented, it's unlikely that a patent examiner will come across your ideas on this message board. They don't have the time to go to every message board on the planet and do searches on inventions. So no, your idea of provided prior art for patent examiners to find isn't going to work.
Yes, it's always possible to go the trade secret route. There specialists who can help determine which way is best for you. Generally, electronics guys have tried to go the trade secret route by encapsulation and through custom IC's, as far as I know. If it's valuable enough, then someone will eventually break the secret though, but I doubt just about anything in audio is that valuable. Don't put yourselves on a pedestal. Most of the industry doesn't care about your fancy circuit, even if you have a patent, because if it's that important, they'll just design around it, or by other means use it.
That would depend on the breadth of your claims. If your invention is not limited to 6" woofers, then those limitations should not be in your claims and then your invention would apply to any kind of driver, again, depending on the claim language.
Your slight at my occupation is not warranted. You do not appear to be competent in patent law, otherwise you would not be making those statements. As a patent examiner of over 32 years now, I am proud of the job I have done with the tools available to me. So no, we do not party all day. You are naive to say such a thing.
Excuse me? You are naive and know nothing about the Patent Office. I dare you to work at the PTO and survive for a year or two. Your comments are completely wrong.
You don't understand patent law, particularly here in the US. Otherwise you would not say such a thing.
I you had such a great idea, then you could have filed a patent application as an improvement on the other guy's patent. So, you're not so bright after all, are you? You could have filed numerous patent applications to box him in, but you didn't do that either, did you?
There are a couple of websites that readers here may find interesting:
Research Disclosure and
IP dot Com
Both serve as "Defensive Publications" in that, if an idea is published in either one, it is deemed Public Knowledge and cannot be patented subsequently. Not by anyone, not even you. Rather like the old IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, in which IBM published all the ideas they decided not to patent. (thus preventing OTHERS from patenting them)
Research Disclosure and
IP dot Com
Both serve as "Defensive Publications" in that, if an idea is published in either one, it is deemed Public Knowledge and cannot be patented subsequently. Not by anyone, not even you. Rather like the old IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, in which IBM published all the ideas they decided not to patent. (thus preventing OTHERS from patenting them)
I am not naive and I have decades of experience with the patent office. I'm sorry, but DF is largely correct. Things are passed through where there's lots of prior art, patents are issued on the same thing to different inventors, ideas which are clearly crackpot or trivial are granted patents, which are by law presumed valid. It would be easy to reform (for example, by adopting a period after publication where the examiner can receive evidence of prior art from the public, to make the re-examination process easier to initiate if a patent is wrongly granted), but as a practical matter, those wheels turn slowly, especially if there's any threat to the income stream of IP attorneys.
We neglect distributed intelligence. We encourage settlement of issues by litigation.
I've had a couple excellent examiners over the years. I've also had many incompetent examiners.
Unfortunately, not true. The patent issued won't be enforceable because of the prior art, but it will take hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys' fees before that finding is made.
"... cannot be patented subsequently ..."
(image attached)
So they're not telling the truth on Research Disclosure's home page? Seems kinda risky for lawyers to tell a big fat lie right at the very beginning of their sales pitch, where regulators and prosecutors can see it easily ....
(image attached)
Attachments
I was unaware of that-it never came up in a single search on any of my patents, only prior patents and their disclosures were ever mentioned by my examiners. Thanks!
This doesn't change my main point- examiners' searches are very restricted. And there's no way for anyone to clue them in, other than the inventor.
This doesn't change my main point- examiners' searches are very restricted. And there's no way for anyone to clue them in, other than the inventor.
an interesting example of US patent office failure is the "TMC" circuit - a patent was issued recently, filing date suspiciously close to the date of active discussion of the method here at diyAudio
and a much older, long expired prior patent was eventually found by those involved in the discussion
why didn't the examiner at least find the prior patent art?
and a much older, long expired prior patent was eventually found by those involved in the discussion
why didn't the examiner at least find the prior patent art?
They are only crackpot and trivial in your opinion, but they are probably not based on the facts or the law, which is what we follow. So yes, stupid ideas are patentable, if the examiner cannot find any prior art to reject the claims.
Your solution is completely unworkable because no one would pay for such a service. We don't work for free, so who's going to pay us to review prior art after granting? Or, are you talking about after the publication of the patent application? Your comment is confusing because you do not use the correct terminology. Even further, have you in fact tried to contact an examiner with pertinent prior art during the examination process of someone else's patent application? I have never heard of anyone doing that, and don't know of a procedure for doing so, but all of our information is out there in the public domain if you want to pick up a telephone and make a call.
Superluminal antennae (for example) are simply crackpot. Same thing with perpetual motion machines that merely don't use that term. My opinion doesn't enter into it. It's crackpot and the examiners let this stuff through.
dirkwright said:
There IS no procedure for contacting an examiner during examination. That's exactly my point. The only prior art considered is what comes up in his/her very limited search, and any prior art sent to the examiner from a third party is ignored (I indeed have first hand experience here). This is different than the European Patent Office (for example) where prior art can be sent to the examiner from anyone (and usually is) and it will be considered.
If you grant a patent where there is plentiful prior art, your excuse that "who's going to pay for this?" rings quite hollow.
The examiners are busy as well- they have a pile of applications on their desk. If you call them about a published application, you will be told that you're not the inventor and they will not discuss it with you. I speak from direct experience.
2cents --- there are a lot of things cooked up in peoples minds which never get published... we just dont published every thought we have. Well, some people do... publish or parish types in research do.
Other than the CIA/FBI/NSA and your spouse, perhaps, how can the examiner know of your great new idea as espoused here in DIYAudio for the first time? Places like this DIYAudio which borders on a social medium at times will not get read/scanned. Anything invented here will be flying under their radar. And, when you have so much interaction, as we do here, many can make claim as a contributor to the idea and also get listed as an inventor on the patent.
-Richard Marsh
Other than the CIA/FBI/NSA and your spouse, perhaps, how can the examiner know of your great new idea as espoused here in DIYAudio for the first time? Places like this DIYAudio which borders on a social medium at times will not get read/scanned. Anything invented here will be flying under their radar. And, when you have so much interaction, as we do here, many can make claim as a contributor to the idea and also get listed as an inventor on the patent.
-Richard Marsh
Last edited:
Thanks for offering us your carefully considered opinion on my abilities.dirkwright said:
Don't US patent examiners have access to Google?
I have never claimed to understand US patent law, or its implementation by the US patent office. On the contrary, the US patent system baffles me - and most Europeans too!
But my understanding was not an improvement, but an awareness of a problem. I don't think I can get a patent for raining on his parade?
In Europe there are many fewer silly patents granted. I am sure some slip through, but the approach over here is quite different from in the US. That shows that it can be done.
Yes, it is true we are not allowed to discuss the merits of an application with anyone except the inventor or his representative. It's also true that the general public cannot file any formal paper in an application. However, if it is a published application (and therefore in the public domain) and someone called me up informally with pertinent prior art, then I would be a fool not to listen. Not all of us are so uptight that we won't listen to someone giving us valuable information about a case before us.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.