How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by CamperBob2 on Sunday August 12, 2018 @06:10PM (#17746704)

(Shrug) They had the option to do the right thing and maintain their final rejection. So why didn't they?

It's hard to escape the conclusion that they just couldn't be bothered.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by anfilt on Sunday August 12, 2018 @06:33PM (#17746826)

Agreed. The fact they were allowed to resumbit such a broad patent with obvious prior art is ridiculous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by pnw_hazor on Sunday August 12, 2018 @08:03PM (#17747171)

They amended the claims which required the examiner to do another search.

As mentioned above, Final Rejection just means you have to pay more money to continue the patent prosecution. This is called a Request for Continued Examination. RCEs are common.

Generally, the initial filing fees provide for two rounds of examination -- a non-final rejection and then a final rejection.

If the applicant re-filed the same claims that were rejected in the final rejection (w/o amending them), the examiner can issue an immediate final rejection on a subsequent RCE if he disagrees with the argument the applicant might have supplied.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How broken is the USPTO: How is this a patent by pnw_hazor on Sunday August 12, 2018 @07:52PM (#17747139)

The last amendment to the claims narrowed them to the extent that the patent is useless. The examiner knew this and allowed the patent.

[ Parent | on HN ]