Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lawyer Loses It In Letter To Patent Office

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the remain-calm dept.

Government 342

bizwriter writes "Nobody would ever say that the world of patent law is a roller coaster of excitement but every now and then something interesting happens. Take this attorney who was angry over a patent examiner's rejection of his client's application. Here are a few snippets from the lawyers letter to the examiner: 'Are you drunk? No, seriously... are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are... (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."....Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.'"

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you this (5, Insightful)

Burb (620144) | about a year ago | (#43580143)

Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (4, Funny)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about a year ago | (#43580157)

To be shortly followed by a letter of apology from said patent attorney, whose business shall immediately take a dive.

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (5, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43580179)

He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (5, Funny)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#43580331)

"It's just the bad 95% of us that give the rest a bad name" -- Ray Beckerman (quoted from memory, might be inexact)

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (5, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43580507)

Probably misquoted as well, but I always liked, "It's just some of the lawyers out there that give a really bad name to the other three."

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (5, Funny)

niftydude (1745144) | about a year ago | (#43580537)

Didn't realize it was possible. Here's an exchange I was told is from an actual court transcript. I really hope it happened as recorded:

* Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
* Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
* Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
* Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43580645)

He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)

Lawyers are out there telling lies that lead to people spending time in prison and you think someone calling out a patent examiner for being a part of a broken machine gives lawyers a bad name? You have some things seriously wrong with you.

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#43580325)

Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.

Just be glad you don't have to pay a license fee for that technique. See, this lawyer tried to patent it, but...

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580447)

I guess the examiner's rubber stamp was broken and this lawyer didn't submit a pantent application for a new fangled unbreakable rubber stamp.

Re:I'm not a patent lawyer, but I can tell you thi (3, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#43580469)

The USPTO seems to be insulting itself worse. I'd rather everyone know I was drunk and on coke than everyone know I was a useless rubber stamp, enabling patent trolls to leech off of society.

that's how a 15 years old teenager (5, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about a year ago | (#43580145)

would react. Seriously, who these lawyers think they are ? God incarnate ?

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (5, Insightful)

Dins (2538550) | about a year ago | (#43580373)

My 15 year old is considerably more mature than that.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (-1, Offtopic)

SupplyMission (1005737) | about a year ago | (#43580625)

Your genderless, generic 15-year-old piece of human offspring?

Seriously, what the fuck is it with people who refer to their kids as "my 15-year-old" or "my 2-year-old", etc.? In my mind, that reduces a person to nothing more than their age, as if that were the only important characteristic. Why can't people say, "my 15-year-old daughter" or "my 2-year-old son" instead?

Everytime someone says in conversation, "Oh hahahaha you wouldn't BELIEVE what our 2-year-old did the other day!" I cringe a thousand times on the inside. Maybe it's just me.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580669)

Yes, it's just you.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580683)

Oh, let's not stop at gender! Anyone who doesn't specify they're child's race mix, body type, astrological sign, and major areas of academic and extracurricular focus in _every_ conversation is treating their child as nothing more than a lump of protoplasm!

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (1, Offtopic)

jimbolauski (882977) | about a year ago | (#43580845)

Oh, let's not stop at gender! Anyone who doesn't specify they're child's race mix, body type, astrological sign, and major areas of academic and extracurricular focus in _every_ conversation is treating their child as nothing more than a lump of protoplasm!

You forgot the most important DNA sequence.

age is often the important factor (4, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | about a year ago | (#43580739)

In many cases the age is the salient factor....a given action from a 2yo is cute or precocious, but from a 5yo is just normal and from a 15yo is babyish. So the age is critically important, while the sex of the child is not relevant.

Also, given that it's not relevant, I think it's entirely reasonable to keep the gender of one's children a private affair rather than post it on the internet for all to see. I may not always do it myself, but it's still reasonable.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (1, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43580783)

(I can't believe I'm writing this, feels like feeding a troll, but whatever)

Because gender doesn't (usually) change. So it's not important to qualify.

Age does, so it's important to qualify.

Apparently, you don't realize this?

My two kids want to punch you in the nuts for cringing over this.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (4, Insightful)

HappyHead (11389) | about a year ago | (#43580799)

They stated the relevant qualifier. Is it really related to their point if said 15-year-old is named Ezekiel, or has a large collection of shoes? Would their gender be relevant? All that is being expressed here is the qualifier that means "This supposedly grown adult who has passed law school should be more mature than the person they're being unfavorably compared to because of reason X, and in this case, reason X is they're only 15 years old, and has nothing at all to do with their preference of orange juice over grape juice. Gender is not relevant here - male versus female 15-year-olds are both still supposed to be less mature than grown and theoretically adult persons who have graduated from law school. The lack of personal details about the child aren't important here to anyone but a creepy stalker.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580813)

Does it really matter to you that the child of some random person on the internet is male or female? Are you planning on stalking them should the gender be your preferred gender of your victims? Are you tracking statistics on how many Random People of the Internet (RPI?) mention their sons vs their daughters? Do you think the child's gender relates to their maturity? Are you blowing up over another uninteresting comment on Slashdot? Can I come up with other questions?

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580411)

Please, can we all just stop using the title as the beginning of a post? This is the way I read it:

"would react. Seriously, who these lawyers think they are ? God incarnate ? that's how a 15 years old teenager"

We all have fat pipes now. We don't need to save the bytes that badly.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year ago | (#43580777)

Please, can we all just stop using the title as the beginning of a post?

No, please carry on. It comes in handy for people who browse at +1. I don't, but then again I'm a -1 masochist.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (4, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about a year ago | (#43580425)

We are Reagans children!! We are the Masters of the Universe!!

Uncle Reagan promised us money! Why is the Government getting in our way!??! This Dysfunctional world is our God given Birthright!!

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (3, Interesting)

Daemonik (171801) | about a year ago | (#43580565)

It's not just lawyers. I had a telemarketer call me once at work to pitch some ridiculous SEO 'get on the front page of Google' service, and when he figured out that I wasn't listening to him he just went into a rant about how unprofessional "I" was and how if I worked for him he'd fire me. I was laughing my ass off when I hung up on the idiot.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (2)

omnichad (1198475) | about a year ago | (#43580719)

If you worked for him, he would be glad you didn't waste time listening to a telemarketer call. I would find it hard to resist the bait to argue that point.

Re:that's how a 15 years old teenager (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#43580627)

Seriously, who these PATENT EXAMINERS think they are ? God incarnate ?

ANSWER: Yes!

I had a valuable patent rejected because the patent examiner said a straight spline item in my product was a helical spiral and therefore was prior art like all other screw threads.

I didn't ask my patent attorney to yell at them, but nothing he could do including a personal call resulted in the examiner backing off their erroneous position. I just had to give up.

Shame the patent application isn't linked... (4, Funny)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year ago | (#43580153)

It would amusing to pick it apart and see how much prior art and how many ridiculous claims it contained.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#43580193)

I want to see what the actual patent rejection contained that would make a lawyer assume someone was drunk and hit "mail merge" with another letter.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (5, Informative)

rioki (1328185) | about a year ago | (#43580547)

Two links from the summary: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html [patentlyo.com]

It contains the letter and an excerpt of the patent application. This is a case of the USPTO doing it's job.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (5, Informative)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43580679)

Here's the patent application (can't link directly to it, but you can see it here [uspto.gov] after you enter the CAPCHA and the patent number 13/068530:

Brueske; David November 15, 2012
Telescoping tripod sprinkler cart

Abstract

A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart may also include a carriage assembly to enable the portability of the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart.

Inventors: Brueske; David; (Olympia, WA)
Serial No.: 068530
Series Code: 13
Filed: May 12, 2011
Current U.S. Class: 239/722
Class at Publication: 239/722
International Class: B05B 3/00 20060101 B05B003/00

Claims

1. A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly; the tripod junction unit comprises a first leg, and a second leg, and a hose conduit; the plurality of support members are sized to mate with the legs; the legs comprise a detent orifice sized to mate with a detent on a support member; the support members comprise a detent for the purpose of fastening the support member to the tripod junction; the sprinkler support assembly is disposed upon the hose conduit of the tripod junction.

2. The Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart of claim 1 further comprising a carriage assembly; the carriage assembly comprises an axle, an axle housing, a pair of wheels, and a pair of struts.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention is in the area of lawn sprinklers, and more particularly pertains to an apparatus for irrigation.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0002] One of the most common chores for a homeowner to address is watering or irrigating a lawn. While some people may use a simple lawn hose to manually irrigate their lawns, most people use various irrigation systems. These irrigation systems can be used to cover large swaths of landscape quickly and efficiently.

[0003] However, the problem with sprinkler systems is their relative high cost and attendant installation. Their relative high cost can stem in large part from the installation thereof. Effective installation requires that underground tunnels or troughs be dug. In many instances, these distances can exceed 50 yards in length. As a consequence, this installation can require a substantial amount of back-breaking work.

[0004] Therefore, what is clearly needed in the art is an apparatus which enables someone to irrigate a large lawn, orchard, or garden and cover a large diameter of space.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus to elevate an irrigation sprinkler to increase the surface area to be covered. By manually adjusting the height of the sprinkler head above ground, a person will be enabled to cover wide areas of lawn, landscape, gardens, orchards, or other areas where constant irrigation is required.

[0006] It is an object of the present invention to provide a portable apparatus with pneumatic wheels to place an elevated tripod sprinkler cart in its desired destination. Oftentimes, long hoses can become heavy, and with the wheels, the towing thereof can be made substantially easier.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES

[0007] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0008] FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0009] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0010] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0011] FIG. 5 is a plan view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0012] FIG. 6 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0013] FIG. 7 is a rear elevation view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0014] FIG. 8 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0015] FIG. 9 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0016] FIG. 10 is a plan view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

[0017] FIG. 11 is a plan view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0018] According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a unique Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart is used to help elevate an irrigation sprinkler head to maximize irrigation coverage. The present invention is described in enabling detail below.

[0019] FIGS. 1-5 illustrate that a Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 includes a tripod junction unit 101, a plurality of support members 103, a sprinkler support assembly 165, and a telescoping assembly 135. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 may also include a carriage assembly 107 to enable the portability of the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100.

[0020] FIG. 6 illustrates that the tripod junction unit 101 comprises a plate 155, a first leg 151, a second leg 152, a third leg 153, and a hose conduit 150. FIG. 8 illustrates that with the portable Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart embodiment, the tripod junction unit 201 may only comprise two legs. In the portable embodiment, one support member is affixed to the carriage assembly, whereas the other support member supports the weight as it rests on the ground. The hose 110 to which the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 is attached is attached to the inlet orifice outlet 195. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 may include a knob assembly 102 for adjusting the height of the sprinkler support assembly 165.

[0021] FIGS. 1-3 illustrate that the support members are sized to mate with the legs of the tripod junction unit 101. The legs comprise a detent orifice sized to mate with a detent 155 on a support member. The support members comprise a detent for the purpose of fastening the support member to the tripod junction. In some preferred embodiments, the support members may be fastened by complementary male and female threading onto the distal ends thereof. In other embodiments, the affixation can take place through a secure interference fit between the units. And in others, the affixation can be accomplished through a corresponding orifice, and a steel member disposed therethrough.

[0022] FIGS. 1-3 also illustrate that in some preferred embodiments, the sprinkler support assembly 165 is disposed upon the hose conduit of the tripod junction. The sprinkler support assembly is telescopic as illustrated in FIGS. 8-9. This telescoping feature can be made possible through a series of detents in some preferred embodiments. FIG. 2 also illustrates that in some preferred embodiments, the sprinkler support assembly may further comprise a top plate 106.

[0023] In other preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 may further comprise a fastening assembly 102 for the purpose of modulating the height of the sprinkler support assembly. The fastening assembly, in some preferred embodiments is simply a knob, and a screw which exerts pressure upon the sprinkler support assembly as it is housed within the tripod junction unit.

[0024] FIG. 4 illustrates the support member 103. The support member 103 is telescopic with one cylinder disposed within a larger cylinder. A detent 155 is included to mate with a corresponding orifice on the tripod junction unit.

[0025] The Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart may also be made to be portable by further incorporating a carriage assembly 107. The carriage assembly includes an axle 115, an axle housing 116, a pair of wheels 104, and a pair of struts 175, 176. When the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart is in a 45.degree. position, most or all of the weight is transferred to the wheels. In some preferred embodiments, the wheels are pneumatic.

[0026] FIG. 1 illustrates that the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart 100 may include a sprinkler head 111. The sprinkler head may be set for full or part circle pattern.

[0027] It will be apparent to the skilled artisan that there are numerous changes that may be made in embodiments described herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. As such, the invention taught herein by specific examples is limited only by the scope of the claims that follow.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

guttentag (313541) | about a year ago | (#43580849)

Oops, almost forgot the best part from the USPTO:

Attorney/Agent Information

LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW SCHROEDER
P.O. Box 6731
Santa Maria CA 93454
310-256-0925
Reg # 53565

Now you know who not to use to file your patents.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (2)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43580199)

its a telescoping tripod sprinkler cart, google it. lots of them. don't know how novel this guy's invention was but the idea is not new

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (4, Funny)

MiniMike (234881) | about a year ago | (#43580293)

Instead of water, this sprinkler cart sprays juvenile insults.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (2)

berashith (222128) | about a year ago | (#43580449)

maybe it sprays Brawndo.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (5, Informative)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#43580217)

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20120286075;jsessionid=01F66ADD5B77B6F5B576659888D85D1B [patentbuddy.com]

here you go. products on the market look just like this

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

Weezul (52464) | about a year ago | (#43580351)

Omg wow! Yeah that product already exists. I've seen em' used in profesional landscaping, although not at houses, well you only need wheels if the sprinkler is heavy. It's a trivial invention, but an old patent application form 1977 does exactly the same thing. I suppose the telescoping business might be new, but what the hell is the point in making it telescoping?

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580459)

Telescoping is useful for a portable device. It allows you to use it in between bushes to shoot over them. I have a few spots like that around my house. Normally you'll want the head low to not create a central dead-spot, but when that area might be something else already (e.g. non-grass ornamental shrubs, mulch, shells) a higher spray is desired, a telescopic function on a portable device is a boon. The benefit of a portable device is that you can use it to cover just the area(s) you need without having to dump 100s or even 1000s of gallons of water on everything in that particular watering zone.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

kryliss (72493) | about a year ago | (#43580567)

Such as this one.
http://www.tripodsprinklers.com/sd350.html

But wait, this one goes to 11!!

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

rfrenzob (163001) | about a year ago | (#43580577)

Except this one works with Brawndo. Its got what plants crave!

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (5, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#43580233)

As usual, the better article is not the one linked to in TFA, but in a deeper link:

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html [patentlyo.com]

Has a picture. Looks like a sprinkler on a tripod and you can raise or lower the sprinkler head. Somehow I'm guessing this is not the first such sprinkler.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (4, Informative)

anagama (611277) | about a year ago | (#43580299)

https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+sprinkler#q=adjustable+tripod+sprinkler&source=univ&tbm=shop [google.com]

Indeed, many such things exist, though it looks like the difference is that in the ones on the first page of google shopping, you adjust the height by adjusting the leg length rather than raising or lowering the center column as in this patent. Adjusting the leg length would better handle uneven ground.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580493)

1. A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising

a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly;

the tripod junction unit comprises a first leg, a second leg, and a hose conduit;

So it's a tripod with 2 legs.
Obviously he deserves his patent :-)

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year ago | (#43580569)

Most tripods of reasonable quality that I'm aware of do both.

Re: Shame the patent application isn't linked... (2)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#43580363)

So he spends several paragraphs ranting but doesn't spend 5 seconds googling? Now who's "Special"

Re: Shame the patent application isn't linked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580417)

So he spends several paragraphs ranting but doesn't spend 5 seconds googling? Now who's "Special"

In fairness to the lawyer, given the current state of the patent system it is not unreasonable for him to expect the patent to be granted regardless of the existence of prior art or obviousness of the "invention."

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580245)

http://www.google.com/patents/US20120286075

The clever bit, you see, is that you film it. And then you watch it ... backwards!

Wonderful way to relax.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (3, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about a year ago | (#43580393)

For starters, he mentioned taxpayers in the letter.

The patent office, like the postal service, is self-funded. Taxpayers don't pay a dime to these people. In fact, a part of the money the patent office brought in used to go back into the bigger federal budget to fund other things.

I'm highly suspicious that this is an actual patent lawyer.

Re:Shame the patent application isn't linked... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43580427)

Indeed. My suspicion is that the patent application was so bad that there was no choice but to reject it. I "hope" this is a case of a patent examiner actually doing his job properly which includes rejecting bad patents. I suspect this is a case of lawyers submitting garbage and having it approved on the basis that it is too complicated for the patent examiner to understand.

Carreon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580155)

So this is what Charles and Tara Carreon are doing now, huh? They represent "inventors" with dubious patent applications? And Tara still goes off on people. Nice to see some things never change.

Re: Carreon (2)

Rational (1990) | about a year ago | (#43580203)

"Carreon Up the Khyber", indeed.

Waiting for response (2)

Splitterside (1983872) | about a year ago | (#43580161)

*grabs popcorn and waits for rebuttal letter* Considering the rates of acceptance is going up, I think the problem with the patent "industry" is the expectation that any application should just get accepted and dealt with in courts later.

Apple should hire him fast! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580171)

...if they haven't already...

Re:Apple should hire him fast! (1)

aXi (6533) | about a year ago | (#43580265)

Apple got it stricken from his record after hiring him.

Nice... (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | about a year ago | (#43580173)

I completely agree with him in regards to how the patent office has been operating as of late. Although his numerous references to retards and special olympics is probably not going to win him any favor with the readers. In any case, I found the letter to be an amusing Monday morning anecdote.

Re:Nice... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43580453)

They are being retarded, but not because they are denying so many legitimate innovations, but because they are approving so many illegitimate non-innovations.

first office action rejections are the norm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580175)

Years ago, and it might still be the same, examiners received "points" for two specific acts. First office action, when they sent the first response back tot he applicant, and final action. Final action could be either granting the patent, or an appelable final action.

Well, the first is easy. Find any possible priot art even if seriously off, or requiring patching together several examples, and send a rejection. Job done.

I wanted too (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580181)

to patent the first post, but I failed due an $@&%$ patent examiner like this one.

Re:I wanted too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580853)

Pretty sure it was just your spelling.

The "product" in question (5, Informative)

udachny (2454394) | about a year ago | (#43580183)

A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.

I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.

Re:The "product" in question (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43580213)

A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.

I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.

Absolutely, this is akin to trying to patent the pencil. I am sure that I have seen similar things if fields for years!

Re:The "product" in question (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43580295)

and just to prove the point:

Re:The "product" in question (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43580365)

The Hi-Rise, in particular, looks like it was the model used to make the drawings in the patent application.

Re:The "product" in question (2)

Bigby (659157) | about a year ago | (#43580423)

But it has wheels! It is a revolutionary change to the telescoping tripod sprinkler industry!

Re:The "product" in question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580779)

No, it would be revolutionary if they made it possible to control it over the internet.

I Wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580189)

I wonder if the patent examiner could send the same letter to the lawyer for submitting such an obvious and worthless patent application?

I guess the lawyer is just upset that he won't be able to cash in when he sues someone for violating another ridiculously obvious patent.

Wow. (2)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#43580191)

Guess who's never getting a patent approved again, *ever*?

Re:Wow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580443)

Thereby proving his argument right, and ensuring that after a costly lawsuit, the patent office rubberstamps every application made by this lawyer.

Would have been nice (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580207)

Would have been nice to know what the patent application was for and why it was rejected to provide context to see whether the lawyer was justified.

Mail merge would be an improvement (4, Informative)

doas777 (1138627) | about a year ago | (#43580223)

with all the horrible patents coming around today, automatically rejecting everything would be a boon for society in general.

Meanwhile, esq.'s daughter Rebecca (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580253)

is finding college [gawker.com] to be a bit of an adjustment [youtube.com] , too.

Re:Meanwhile, esq.'s daughter Rebecca (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#43580477)

OMG that dramatic reading (bit of adjustment [youtube.com] ) is a hoot!

Shoe's on the other foot (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43580257)

I am sure the typical patent examiner can say the same thing about more than one patent lawyer.

Wow. (1)

grub (11606) | about a year ago | (#43580287)

For a moment it sounded like Steve Jobs going on about a rejection.

Re: Wow. (0)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#43580385)

Considering steve jobs basically created the finger input touchscreen smartphone and tablet market, he would be allowed to rant like this. This guy is patenting a 50 yr old sprinkler system. Not the same

Re: Wow. (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43580501)

Steve Jobs DID NOT invent the smartphone or tablet or touchscreen at all. that is all 1980's tech. All he did was pair a new high capacity battery with a bog standard low power microprocessor and a stylish case.

Actual substantive complaint missing... (5, Insightful)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about a year ago | (#43580289)

Seriously, he's a lawyer, in what particular does he think the rejection is wrong?

  The nearest thing to a substantive accusation is that the examiner is simply rejecting the application because he's lazy and that's easy. But it's my understanding that, in fact, patent examiners face a lot of pressure to approve applications, which is faster and easier than rejection, because it takes less effort to justify approval, and because approvals don't generally get appealed by the applicant. So while I am sure laziness afflicts patent examiners from time to time, it's not obvious that this is an example.

As for "doing his job", his job is not to approve applications, it's to examine them and make a determination. Rejection is one possible outcome, and is not by itself proof that the job wasn't done.

So, yeah, faceless bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, ha ha. Tell me again what problem you solved by making this assertion?

Fewer patents == Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580305)

We don't need more patents - we need fewer. This isn't just good for intellectual freedom, it also enhances the value of existing patents. If the patent examiner allows a patent that's very similar to an existing one - then the value of the existing patent is eroded. The 89% acceptance rate that we currently have is *WAY* above the 59% historical norm...I very much doubt that this is because higher quality or more novel patents going into the system.

So, yeah. This lawyer is in trouble...nobody wants a lawyer who can't keep his cool and work on a professional level - so this is likely one of those career-ending messages that should never have been sent.

LMAO (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43580315)

Wow I dream of sending emails like this to a number of people I work with haha wow this lawyer gets props from me :-)

Re:LMAO (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year ago | (#43580529)

So you're not a particularly obnoxious example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but you wish you were?

Re:LMAO (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43580851)

No because unlike most of the people I have to work with on a day to day basis I actually have the skill to backup my work. Clearly this lawyer is pointing out how people who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect get into positions they shouldn't. I would say at least 40% of my industry is laced with people who are barely able to work fast food. Of course we thank HR for those people having jobs and not the qualified engineers / embedded developers who should of interviewed them.

Opposite of expectation (3)

phorm (591458) | about a year ago | (#43580333)

Strange, somehow I would have expected such a rant after seeing some of the idiotics patents that have been approved. It's somehow even more disheartening to find that the rant is in regards to an apparently non-unique patent being rejected (as it should be).

Government (0)

sycodon (149926) | about a year ago | (#43580339)

If you were to take out all the particulars related to Patents and just keep the rest, this letter would be applicable to all areas of government.

Examiners mailing rejection letters from home... (2)

Troy Baer (1395) | about a year ago | (#43580347)

...is entirely possible. For the last several years, the U.S. Patent Office has been moving to a distributed model where comparatively few patent examiners live in the D.C. area except during their initial training period. I know two patent examiners, and both live in Ohio. In any case, this text-hissy-fit likely did no favors for the lawyer or their client.

Last dating Rebecca Martinson (1)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about a year ago | (#43580349)

Soon to be followed by Rebecca Martinson / Patent lawyer sex tape.

Do you realize that these two people could.... breed?

Fake Story (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#43580405)

I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.

Re:Fake Story (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#43580613)

I would only believe this story if he then got in return an accepted patent for a specific type of "rejection response raging." That would approximately sum up their open application, flip a coin, go watch TV methodology that they appear to use.

I believe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580415)

that the customary response to such a tirade would be "fuck off".

Re:I believe... (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year ago | (#43580517)

Better: "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram".

Either brilliant or venting (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43580435)

If this letter generates enough static around the patent situation (and I tend to agree, in general, with the spirit of the letter) then maybe it was a brilliant ploy on the lawyers part to drag the issues out into prime time news feeds using drama as the winch. Sometimes any exposure to a corrupt problem is better than none at all.

Points quota system (4, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year ago | (#43580495)

First rejections are so common there is a theory that examiners are motivated to automatically reject patent applications the first time they review them. The theory goes like this:

Patent examiners are on a quota point system. They have to accumulate so many points for an acceptable performance rating. They get points for all sorts of activity. But one of the most visible ones is an office action.

So they could get a point for approving a patent. Do the work, get a point, move on to the next patent.

But they also get points each time they reject a patent. Naturally the inventor will file a response to the rejection. The examiner can now earn another point by responding to a patent he or she has already invested time reviewing and is familiar with.

This can go on several times until a statutory limit requires a final decision. Once they approve a patent or give a final rejection, the stream of points for that file ends.

So there is an incentive to find a trivial reason for initial rejection, especially if there is a chance it can be overcome. That just leads to a chance for a second rejection.

I don't know how true the theory is, but if you're trying to explain to yourself why you got a dumb rejection, it makes as much sense as anything else.

Errr... that makes no sense (2)

sirwired (27582) | about a year ago | (#43580549)

Given that the patent office is self-funded, and rejections only make more time-consuming work, it'd be silly for some Machiavellian Patent Office executive to hand out incentives for rejecting patents.

Re:Errr... that makes no sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580761)

You do realize we're talking about a system set up by management here, right?

Re:Points quota system (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#43580665)

Your theory makes no sense because the patent office gets more money when they grant a patent than when you simply file. They are motivated to grant patents.

Re:Points quota system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580807)

The office as a whole might be, but the thing outlined in the previous post seems to be an incentive for individual examiners to reject applications initially due to a stupid performance metric.

Re:Points quota system (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43580715)

That strategy would work if the Patent office didn't have a humungous backlog. But it does, so there are always more patents to process (and points to earn).

According to what I've read the problem is currently that the backlog is causing the Patent Office to approve patents too easily, reducing the quality of the patent.

No, my experience as a patent holder is that the patent process is one of negotiation. The first filing is make overly broad in order to see what you can get away with. When it's rejected you winnow it down to something that likely to get accepted, and perhaps beef up your arguments to get rid of any sticking points.

Big deal (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year ago | (#43580675)

You know, if the patent office doesn't like it, why don't they just grant the next patent they see for "using words".

Fool speaks the truth (1)

McGruber (1417641) | about a year ago | (#43580711)

From the lawyer's letter:

Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What's the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine?

He has a point - during 2012, 89% of all US patent applications were granted, according to a University of Richmond School of Law study.

“It is a fool's prerogative to utter truths that no one else will speak.” - Neil Gaiman

LMAO (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43580767)

Chances are the patent application was so full of ambiguous legal gobbledygook that it would take someone on crack, or some strong mind-altering drug, to even begin to try and make sense of it.

But I think the problem is that the patent office has been slammed with just accepting everyone's bullshit that now they are probably rejecting everything out of spite.

Something's wrong here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580785)

Wait, the patent office can reject applications?

Next up: Man Loses It In Letter To Law School (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43580803)

When you decided to confer this man with a degree, were you: a) drunk b) asleep c) bribed? Seriously.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>