[DannyBee]

So, this sounds great and all, but I don't see any proof that it was ask patents that caused the examiner to find this, rather than the examiner's standard search?

In fact, the search history, on PAIR (look for 4-11-2013 SRFW Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes) does not say ask patents was used, nor does the search strategy (document code SRNT).

It could be the USPTO has not gotten around to noting this yet, but the only entry I see that could be related is the NPL entry, which of course, has no image available (god i love PAIR), and does not say it came from outside the search.

Don't get me wrong, I think askpatents is great, but i'm skeptical considering how examiners actually work.

[jaydles]

The USPTO explicitly asked us to set up this site to help get the public involved in getting prior art to the examiners. (Press release:http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-60.jsp.) So, while it's entirely possible that the examiner might have eventually found this without us, which is far from certain, it seems reasonable to assume that they saw it on the site. Which means that even if you assume they would have found it without help - again, questionable, given the number of weak patents out there - at a minimum, we probably saved them a lot of time, which frees up more resources to look for prior art on the next crappy patent. And that reduces the odds that the clock runs out without them finding any, which leads to a lousy issuance.

[DannyBee]

I'm aware the USPTO asked you to set up ask patents. The USPTO has a number of pilot programs, and i'm involved in some.

My only question is whether AskPatents was how it got to the USPTO.

I don't see why it's reasonable to assume that they saw it on the site considering most examiners still don't do that sort of thing. Most of them search the USPTO approved databases, internally, and go about their way. This is in fact, what the search strategy/et al says happened. Given that, i think the burden falls on you to show some likelihood here.

For example, do you have anything to say that any significant percentage of examiners (IE > 10%) use askpatents on a regular basis? I would be pleasantly shocked if you did.

The rest is not the argument i am making, the only argument I am making is: "Do you have any evidence that your site is the reason the USPTO found this?"

From what I can tell, your answer is "no".

If you do, great!

No offense meant, of course, my problem is if you declare victory when you were not actually involved, this will actually make things worse - people will think they are helping solve the issue, yet, if the PTO actually isn't using your data heavily, they aren't.

Again, don't get me wrong, i think askpatents is a great idea, and i'd hope and love to find out it's actually being used heavily by the PTO. I can't find any stats on that, and given the history of prior pilot programs/etc, i'm very skeptical.

[jaydles]

No offense taken, and thanks for the overall support!

As to:

> "Do you have any evidence that your site is the reason the USPTO found this?"

Well, the office has told us directly that examiners are reviewing the site. So, when they then reject an application, based primarily on art posted on the site, that was asked for and posted there just prior to the actual review, it makes me highly optimistic that it's not all a coincidence, although I suppose that's theoretically possible.

[nileshtrivedi]

You could have just said, "no" and it would have been okay. We would have understood. We're on the same side after all. :)

[casenelson]

Is it the examiners who post some of the requests for prior art? If so, it would be nice if their accounts or requests could be badged so other users can be reasonably sure that the research they do will be seen by the USPTO.