I still contend that this is a serious problem in a legal system that includes presumption of validity.
(I recently learned that examiners at the European Patent Office have no direct incentives for granting a patent and may internally bill more working time if they reject a patent application instead. However, as rejecting an application requires a lot more research than granting a patent, examiners still might have an incentive to just grant a patent.)
So "new" and "non-obvious" weren't already requirements?? That explains a lot.
On the off chance that you weren't being ironic, novelty and non-obviousness (to one "skilled in the art") have been requirements for decades.
The author of "we've issued new guidance" is either playing you for a sap or doesn't know patent law.
Ah, another person who doesn't remember when good metal shops in school were nearly universal and even the drones took shop and passed when that meant something.
And yes, it was relatively easy to get the equipment and start making things.
We've also issued new guidance to examiners to help ensure that patents cover only "new" and "non-obvious" inventions.
That's impossible in the field of software. There is simply too much activity and too many specialties for the patent office to have any hope of being able to reasonably evaluate whether a claimed invention is novel, or whether it's obvious to a skilled programmer in the relevant specialty.
This is one big reason (though not the only reason) why software is incompatible with the patent system. Patent law has a presumption of validity for issued patents, and that presumption is laughable if it's a software patent.
If millions of people carried machine shops around in their backpacks, mechanical engineering would be incompatible with the patent system too.