POSTGRANTREVIEW.com Notes from a Post Grant Review

Dispatch No. 34 ← Previous ↰ All

Mr. PGR Goes to Washington

Cartoon of the goggled inventor in a stained lab coat standing on the Senate floor, clutching a fistful of papers labeled ‘Letters’ and ‘Correspondence,’ beside overflowing baskets of unread mail, while a white-haired senator and rows of suited legislators look on unmoved.
Petitioning my government for a redress of grievances. It's in the First Amendment.

I'm headed to Washington to air my grievances.

By The Inventor

Background — part of my pro se Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent 12,460,537, which I believe copies rotation-sensing I disclosed first. This one is an update in my quest to call attention to the flaws in the system. New here? Start at Dispatch No. 1.

First Amendment

Did you know there are actually five enumerated freedoms in the First Amendment? Go ahead and read it; I'll wait:

[U.S. Const. amend. I — National Archives transcript]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

In case there's any doubt: this whole site is my petition to the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe the USPTO screwed up. It allowed a patent application that, I strongly believe, copied both my words and my publicly disclosed ideas — after an examination so obviously flawed that the integrity of the system demands a correction.

I did everything right. I played by the rules. After my third-party submission — the only say the rules gave me — I had to sit quietly while misrepresentations and errors went into the record. I've documented those here. I welcome counterpoints and feedback.

The redress

An examiner's mistake isn't, by itself, grounds for any administrative remedy (although I think it should be). In court, an issued patent is presumed valid, so the fix has to come from the USPTO itself. The only proceeding that could have heard everything wrong with this patent, § 112 included, was a Post Grant Review, and it's financially out of reach for the average citizen inventor. I'm the one who was wronged, and I'm expected to pay unreasonable, punitive fees to the same agency that made the mistake, so that it can maybe fix it.

That's my grievance.

No reasonable remedy

During examination there is no remedy for incompetence. I watched it happen. I couldn't say anything more. This all could have been avoided by a competent examination. A competent reexamination is what I'm asking for.

One last hope — 35 U.S.C. § 303(a)

In the last post, I showed what I would have filed if I had $59,375 to burn. That's $60k to maybe fix a screwup that I didn't cause (and did everything I could to prevent).

I prepared the PGR petition, but I couldn't afford the fee to file it. Still, I have one hope: the Director can order a reexamination of the patent on the Director's own initiative under 35 U.S.C. § 303(a). I sent the Director my petition, along with a plea to do exactly that.

I also asked my congressional representative to open an inquiry with the USPTO. You know, move the process along. Petition my government for the redress of a grievance.

That's why I'm headed to DC.

Front of the DC handout card: ‘Who pays when the Patent Office gets it wrong?’ A cartoon inventor cheerfully hands cash to a masked man in a suit (‘WOOSH’), beside the lines ‘They copied both my words and my idea. How did the USPTO allow this?’ and postgrantreview.com.
Front
Back of the DC handout card: the gagged, rope-bound inventor beside ‘The Short Version’ — I thoroughly disclosed my invention to the USPTO; that public disclosure became an easily copied template; I filed prior art showing every element was public; the USPTO issued it anyway through a flawed examination; the examiner didn’t even proofread the allowed claims; I couldn’t afford $59,375 to initiate a Post Grant Review. ‘The Ask’: urge the USPTO Director to order reexamination of Patent 12,460,537 under 35 U.S.C. § 303(a). The integrity of the system depends on it. A QR code, postgrantreview.com, inventor@postgrantreview.com, and a blank From line.
Back

Discussion