TeamPatent

Patent Drafting Service – Write • Share • Collaborate

Archive for July, 2009

Import Published Patents to Identify Errors

Posted by rokahn on 2009-July-13

We at TeamPatent are working on the ability to automatically import published patent grants/applications into our editor/validation system.  Users could read patents with the text and figures side-by-side and identify likely errors.   To illustrate its functionality, we manually imported two published patents:

A user’s patent application US20070022295 “System and method for providing secure message signature status and trust status indication” is imported as a demonstration document in all users’ dashboards as TP Sample Patent – Secure Message.  TeamPatent automatically highlighted the following errors in red, allowing a user to quickly navigate to them and make changes.

  1. sender 30, mail sender 30, message sender 30, and LAN 30 (should be LAN 18?)
  2. mobile device 38, receiver 38
  3. component 42, digital signature 42, Cert 42, CRLs 42
  4. device 100, message text 100
  5. callout 62 (Retrieve sender’s public key) in Fig. 3 is unsupported

Photonics Magazine asked us to parse their user community’s seminal patent, US4704583, “Light amplifiers employing collisions to produce a population inversion”.  It’s available as in your dashboard as TP Sample Patent – Optical Amplifier.  TeamPatent automatically found the following errors:

  1. callout 45 (RF Power) in Fig. 3 is not supported in the specification
  2. elongated cavity 121 is not supported in the figures
  3. heating coil 126 is not supported in the figures
  4. electrode 127 is also, erroneously, called temperature regulator 127
  5. callout 138 in Fig. 4 is not supported in the specification
  6. callout 436 in Fig. 5 is not supported in the specification

We think TeamPatent will become part of the standard of care attorneys and agents will practice before filing patent applications.  TeamPatent will obviate tedious hours currently spent manually checking references and avoid errors (such as the above) that make it through manual checks. We also think that an automatic import facility will make TeamPatent more approachable for professionals because what’s more compelling than seeing one of your own published patents run through the validation engine?

One of our users is a former patent examiner who’s pressed us to provide better tools for the PTO.  Since applications are typically published before the first office action, the import functionality will allow examiners to automatically identify likely errors.  This will provide the facility to both measure and improve the Patent Quality Index (PQI) metrics USPTO Director-Elect, David Kappos has proposed.

We welcome your comments on how good a fit TeamPatent will be in these applications.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

David Kappos proposes Patent Quality Index (PQI)

Posted by rokahn on 2009-July-13

David Kappos, the new USPTO director, is a strong proponent of technology for evaluating patent applications. He specifically calls for automated tools that ensure terms used in the claims have also been used and defined in the specification and that elements used in the drawings have been described and explained in the specification. We note that TeamPatent provides exactly this functionality. In this interview on May 8, 2009, he describes how PQU benefits applicants:

“Patent Quality Index (PQI): By quality, I mean whether the prior art has been cited and applied, whether terms used in the claims have also been used and defined in the specification, have elements used in the drawings have been described and explained in the specification…What you’d think of as a patent that’s clear and comprehensible…those are the basic parameters.

How does PQI help applicants? This is a statistically-based engine that will evaluate in an automated fashion a patent application which is either ready to be filed or has been filed and provides a numerical score and a basis for the numerical score….in other words, an explanation of what was found to be problematic in the patent application. The way I’d be ready to use this at IBM…is to run each application through that tool and evaluate the results. If there are terms that are being used in the claims which are not used or defined anywhere in the specification or drawings, we’re going to take a look at those terms and make sure we add a glossary or somehow define them appropriately. I’m going to use that as an applicant to improve the applications I’m filing with examiners, hopefully cutting down on rate of objections and rejections, enabling examiners to get into the applications more quickly, and hopefully give me better objections and rejections, and hopefully getting me to grant more quickly. As an applicant, I see a lot of upside to have a tool like this; an automated way to make sure I have all the right stuff in the applications I’m filing and they’re going to be ready to be examined and granted as patents.”

- David Kappos, USPTO Director
“IP Outlook in the Reform Era”, Webinar with Jon Dudas

Posted in uspto | 1 Comment »