The blog
Dispatches
Tall tales from a flawed system. Newest first. If you're new here, read these from the bottom up.
-
Independence Day
Sometimes you just need to do the right thing, even if it's difficult.
-
Let's Fix It
Too much complaining. I've got a lot to gripe about, but complaining doesn't fix anything. Here are a few thoughts on improving the system.
-
TL;DR; They were too long, so I didn't read them
A TL;DR; of the TL;DRs. This story is long and complicated. Here's a breakdown of all the key points. I may seem crazy for tugging on all these threads, but I promise there is something to be learned from all of this.
-
TL;DR; All the system failures
Every place the system failed me: the copying, the unread prior art, the sloppy examination, and most importantly, the misleading statements. These are all the ways the system can fail, but are still not reason enough to revoke an issued patent. It's a lot.
-
TL;DR; §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112
The recap: § 101 (is it even an invention?), § 102 (is it new?), § 103 (is it obvious?), and § 112 (did they actually teach it?) — three grounds I'm raising (§§ 102, 103, 112) plus a § 101 discussion, across four dispatches, one short recap. This is the meat & potatoes of the PGR.
-
§ 112 — They Never Said How
§ 112 — the specification and claim requirements are the price of the patent bargain: the monopoly is only earned if the disclosure actually teaches the invention — described, enabled, and claimed with reasonable certainty. Theirs recites a result and skips the ‘how.’ It’s the cleanest ground I have — and the one I was never allowed to raise until now.
-
§ 103 — Obvious to Anyone in the Field
§ 103 — the obviousness bar: even when no single reference has everything, a claim falls if the gaps would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. These gaps are trivial. In a functional system, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But this isn’t a story about a functional system.
-
§ 102 — Nothing New Here
§ 102 — Anticipation is the novelty test: if a single prior-art reference already shows every element of a claim, the claim isn’t new. My own publication shows all of it on its own. A second prior-art document covers it too. In a functional system, either of these should have worked. But this isn’t a story about a functional system.
-
§ 101 — What Even Counts as an Invention
§ 101 — Eligibility decides what qualifies as an invention at all: a real machine or process, not an abstract idea dressed up in generic sensors. In a functional system, that’s how it’s supposed to work. But this isn’t a story about a functional system.
-
New material, not in the disclosure
It looks minor — but a claim limitation that isn't in their own disclosure is the kind of defect that can sink a claim. Yet another examination failure.
-
Bounding to a single stroke
The claim fences the sampling into a single stroke — first, second, third change of direction — but I disclosed that too. Actually, it's inherently contained in the stroke.
-
Indefinite and Unenabled
The § 112 problem the examiner never reached: a claim a skilled reader can't pin down, on a disclosure that never teaches the method.
-
Let's Ask Claude
I handed the whole prosecution history to Claude and asked it to find the errors. Here's what it caught.
-
Claim 13 — Again
Not just incompetent examination — in my reading, the Claim 13 quotation in the applicant's remarks doesn't match the claim they actually amended.
-
Strapping Cell Phones to Oil Wells
The first prototype was literally a phone strapped to an oil well. The sensors were already in your pocket. How to process that signal was the hard part.
-
My Apology to Good Examiners
My fight is with a broken process — not with the people who do the job right.
-
You Still Don't Believe Me About the Direction Change Thing?
Let's look at claim 7, because that originally contained the "allowable" material. Plus it defines what a stroke is. Their own definition confirms it.
-
A Private Conversation, Held in Public
You can read every word of the examination — and you don't get to say anything.
-
Post-Allowance, Preissuance — What could I do?
A sternly worded letter has never gotten me into trouble…
-
The Overly Broad Claim Slipped Through
This one is easy to see — all you need is the Notice of Allowance and the final claims.
-
Back From the Dead
Folks talk about "bad patents" — this is how they come to be.
-
Progress — A Final Rejection
Nothing is less final than a final rejection at the USPTO.
-
The Third-Party Preissuance Submission
I did what anyone else would have done… the only thing I could do.
-
Where have I heard this before?
The second time it was copied — this time it was literally copied. I found their published application, hit an oddly worded sentence, and caught the déjà vu — because I'm the one who wrote it.
-
The first time this idea was good enough to copy
The side-story: September 2018, when someone first caught wind of the idea — before the reworded application, before the patent.
-
A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has a Fool for a Client
The old proverb is right, but I'm doing it anyway — because when you have nothing to gain, you also have nothing to lose. Or is it the other way around?
-
Why a PGR?
The Post Grant Review exists to correct exactly this kind of mistake. But even in the best case, it doesn't really get me anything. Let me explain why I'm doing it anyway.
-
I tried to prevent this mess
Welcome to the blog. Before we get to the Post Grant Review itself, let me explain the context leading up to this — the part where I tried to prevent all of this, paid a fee on top of it all, and was summarily ignored.
