This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz
by Rick DeNatale.
Original Post: US Patent #7,464,384
Feed Title: Talk Like A Duck
Feed URL: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles.atom
Feed Description: Musings on Ruby, Rails, and other topics by an experienced object technologist.
When I retired from IBM some years ago, I had a couple of pending patent applications. I always wondered if and when the
patent(s) issued, whether or not I would hear about it.
Early this week, I got notification that one of the applications had been granted last Tuesday, and I’m now recorded as the inventor of
US Patent #7,464,384 “Method for inter-object communication”
Word came not from IBM, but from an outfit which sells plaques commemorating the issuance of patents. I still haven’t heard
and don’t know if I ever will, from IBM.
The road to patent issue can be long and winding. I’ve looked at transaction history for this patent on the US Patent office’s web site
and see this history (some details omitted):
03-14-2002
Application filed
11-02-2004
Non-Final Rejection mailed to IBM
02-01-2005
IBM response after Non-Final Action
06-10-2005
A second Non-Final Rejection mailed
08-01-2005
IBM responds again
09-28-2005
Patent office mails a Final Rejection
11-16-2005
IBM submits an Amendment after Final Rejection
12-09-2005
Patent office mails an Mail Advisory Action
12-14-2005
IBM files Notice of Appeal
02-14-2006
Appeal Brief Filed
06-06-2006
Yet another Non-Final Rejection
09-06-2006
IBM files another Notice of Appeal
11-06-2006
Appeal Brief Filed
12-06-2006
Appeal Forwarded to Examiner
12-06-2006
Appeal Brief Review Complete – a quick review!
02-26-2007
Another Non-Final Rejection
05-24-2007
Another response from IBM
08-02-2007
A second Final Rejection
What had been going on was an argument between the Patent examiner, and the lawyer representing IBM about the claims in the patent application.
The claims are what gives a patent force. Each claim can be defended individually. Most patents contain one or more series of claims
starting with specific claims followed by more and more general claims. For example if you had invented the Car, you might first
claim a motor vehicle with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine. A broader claim might be the invention
described in the first claim with any kind of internal combustion engine, then with any kind of engine. Other variations might hinge
on the number of wheels, etc. The original patent application contained 30 claims, and at this point the Patent Examiner had rejected
all of them.
IBM submitted a detailed defense of the claims in the patent.
12-21-2007
Date Forwarded to Examiner
12-28-2007
Mail Non-Final Rejection
04-04-2008
Request for Extension of Time – Granted
04-04-2008
Response after Non-Final Action
05-09-2008
Date Forwarded to Examiner
07-15-2008
Mail Notice of Allowance
IBM’s attorney apparently finally convinced the Patent examiner to accept the most specific claim in the patent. I assume that this is
the point at which it was determined that the patent would be issued.
10-14-2008
Issue Fee Payment Received and Verified
10-21-2008
Application Is Considered Ready for Issue
10-14-2008
Amendment after Notice of Allowance (Rule 312)
11-03-2008
Response to Amendment under Rule 312
11-06-2008
Mail Response to 312 Amendment (PTO-271)
11-19-2008
Issue Notification Mailed
12-09-2008
Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
So it took six years and four months to convince the Patent office of the validity of the application, and just shy of fiver more months before the patent issued.
What a trip!
And to be honest, I’m rather ambivalent on the whole issue of software patents
Previous Topic
