Talk:United States Patent and Trademark Office
|WikiProject United States Public Policy||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This article does not say JACK SHIT about trademarks. I think it should. I mean, that's half the office, right?
- Excellent idea. Feel free to make a contribution. --Nowa 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The revenue from the Patents business side is about 1.2 billion dollars annually. The revenue from the Trademarks side is on the order of 200 million dollars. That ain't half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
Staffing is about 1/10 Trademarks versus Patents, also. However if you DO want the article to say "jack shit"about trademark, have at it.
- I added the Jack part.--Nowa 15:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Prior comments indicated that fee diversion was opposed by the management of the USPTO. As of 2004, that is no longer the case. The President of the US and the commissioner of the patent office both oppose fee diversion. See --Nowa 11:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- ... for formating. Inline links, prgh brks need sonsolidatioon ... etc ... nothing of content ... just presentation. I'll do it in a bit if no one else does. J. D. Redding 15:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a link in the article for a wiki entry for Jon W. Dudas. It might be a bit too much to create an article for Dudas. I think the best idea might be an external link to the Office of the Under Secretary which has some information on Dudas and can be easily used when a new Under Secretary is named in the future by simply adjusting the individuals name in the article. Does this meet with everyone's approval? -J. M. 20 Dec 2005
- Sounds good to me.--Nowa 03:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Go ahead. Be bold. Cheers. --Edcolins 08:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Types of Patents
Does anyone know how to decode this page? :
It would benefit the article. -GChriss
- You want an explanation of the different type of patents? if so I can explain Utility Design, Reissue, and SIR easily enough. The only thing I think I know about Plant Patents is that they are patents related to, well Plants. The others I could do easily enough. Would you just like a brief explanation in the USPTO article, because I know there is an article on Design Patents and a mention of Plant Patents in Plant Patent Act. - Thebdj 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Why criticisms don't have any examples of most hated software patents, like Amazon's 1-click? or Microsoft's doubleclick on portable device? Eolas? Blackberry/RIM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
Part of the 'Controversial Patents' couldn't be verified
Here is a part of the 'Controversial Patents' section that I've temporarily removed:
- This has happened before, for example, when the Patent Office issued a patent for a method for "swinging on a swing" (U.S. Patent 6,368,227). The patent was rejected upon subsequent reexamination because the examiner found that the distinguishing feature of the invention, "yelling like Tarzan", did not "particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention" (35 USC 112, second paragraph) (see Reexam - Final Rejection).
The exact wording might well be correct, but in looking for the information, I could not verify it. The 'portal.uspto' link doesn't work directly, but the related link http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/.ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341/.d/9?selectedTab=detailstab&isSubmitted=isSubmitted&dosnum=09715198#7_0_3AB does reach information about the application. Information from this link does not appear to support the notion that the patent was granted or, in fact, rejected. Rather, it appears that the application languished and eventually expired from non-payment. Further, no detail documents are available from the USPTO via this link that could be consulted for the 'Final Rejection'. I'm all for including this information in the article, that's fine, but could someone with more savvy in this area help out by establishing the information's verifiability? Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful questions. I put in the new link  and it seemed to work. Does it work for you as well?
- I think you may be misinterpreting what you are seeing in the related link. The related link is to the PAIR entry for the patent itself. The status is "Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362" So the patent issued, but the patent owner has let the patent expire by not paying the maintenance fees due.
- There is a separate entry in the PAIR database for the reexamination. The reexamination "application number" is 90/006,289. If you enter this you will see that the status is "Reexamination Certificate Issued". To see what the examination certificate actually says, you can click on "Image File Wrapper" tab. You should get this .
- If you then click on the reexamination certificate, it will say "Claims 1,2,3, and 4 are cancelled." Thus the patent still exists, but it doesn't cover anything since all of the claims have been cancelled. To see why they are cancelled, you need to click on the most recent final examination on the same page.
- Does this address your concerns?--Nowa 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
History of the office?
I miss some information on the history of the office. When was it created, who have headed it over the years, what's the historic growth of patent applications been? --Alvestrand 21:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- The two articles History of United States patent law and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property mention some of the information you seek. The general article Patent#History mentions that under the Articles of Confederation goverment (1778–1789) many states formed their own individual patent offices. I note that US Patent Office redirects to this page and I think for many years that was what the office was known as ("Trademark" in the title is recent). The article Term of patent in the United States also has historic information. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article as written now focuses mostly on the current setup. I agree that the history of U.S. patent law and the history of the Patent Office are two different things. The Patent Office was been moved around amongst a lot of cabinet-level agenices (State, Interior, Commerce and Labor, Commerce) and none of that is detailed here. That is bad.220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Flatulence powered rocket
This is a cute patent, but I'm not sure why it is controversial. Can you provide a reference?
- U.S. Patent 6,055,910 "Toy gas fired missile and launcher assembly" describes a toy rocket launcher device. The user operates this device by placing it adjacent his anal region and flatulating into a combustion chamber. Then igniting the combustible gas to "fire the missile into space".--Nowa 02:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposed addition to your External Links section
Add sub head to separate .gov sites from other sites
- More US Patent Information
Add link to TimeLine of when Patent numbers were issued - very useful for dating antiques
- TimeLine of Patent number issue dates (Patent: Design, Plant. Trademark. Invention.)
- About HowOLDisit.com
- hOii is an alternate way of viewing facts in the Wiki
- hOii facts are as tightly compressed as possible. "footnotes" of www research sources are organized by whole pages not by text entries to minimize page to page navigation.
- Oppose addition. Random websites that display relatively arbitrary information should not be included. Furthermore, the USPTO has a web page that addresses the specifics of the proposed link, in that in  the USPTO gives the relevant information. Since that is an official website and not one that basically represents original research, the proposed "benefit" of the suggested site is better served through the official site. Also, patents are officially dated. Cquan (after the beep...) 08:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)