IP Attorney Responds To Patent Application Rejection By Filing Ranting, Ad Hom 'Remarks'
from the should-try-to-patent-a-scotch-that-isn't-also-a-whiskey dept
There's a lot of anger directed at the US Patent Office, but it mainly originates with people frustrated by the office's "rubber stamp" approval process that has littered the road to success with hundreds of trolling speedbumps, each one waving a stack of overly broad patents and demanding that actual innovators hand over enough cash to cover the rent on their empty East Texas offices.
Patently O has uncovered some anger directed at the USPTO, this time coming from the opposite direction. After a client's application for a telescoping sprinkler was rejected for not being anything the patent office hadn't seen before, patent attorney Andrew Schroeder fired off an apoplectic set of "remarks" to the patent examiner. It starts by suggesting the examiner has a drinking problem and then sinks even lower. Way lower.
REMARKS: Are you drunk? No, seriously…are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you "examine" patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I'm curious. Because you either haven't read the patent application or are… (I don't want to say the "R" word) "Special."Andrew Schroeder is too genteel to actually use the word "retarded," but that doesn't stop him from throwing around a bunch of synonymous phrases.
So, tell me something Corky…what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?The USPTO briefly posted these "remarks" before taking them down (and there's more of this spectacular rant at Patently O). As for the patent in question (posted below), the patent reviewer found the tripod sprinkler wasn't anything special, citing U.S. Patent No. 2,694,600, Patent No. 4,824,020 and Patent No. 5,484,154.
Perhaps you might want to take your job seriously and actually give a sh.t! What's the point in having to deal with you Special Olympics rejects when we should just go straight to Appeals? While you idiots sit around in bathtubs farting and picking your noses, you should know that there are people out here who actually give a sh.t about their careers, their work, and their dreams.
Apparently, attorney Andrew Schroeder sent another set of "remarks" to the examiner who rejected this patent application. Oddly enough, it was the same examiner who rejected the sprinkler: Alexander Valvis. This unlucky lightning rod/government employee lists seven patents in this rejection. These remarks have also been removed by the USPTO, somewhat limiting Schroeder's infamy.
Clients hiring Schroeder to assist them in filing patent applications may be surprised to learn that "antagonizing the USPTO" is one of the bonus services the attorney provides. It's certainly not included in the long list of services on his fee page. (It does, however, list an intriguing option called "Office Action," which is available in 2 or 3-hour sessions [$500-$750].) Schroeder's offerings cover a whole range of IP-related services, many of which are thoroughly "explained" by pages that appear to be still under construction. (Click on the "IP Piracy" page to watch a not-yet-uploaded video futilely attempt to buffer itself into existence and marvel as the attorney's phone number [the only text on the page] tells you all you need to know about how "IP Law Stops IP Theft.")
At the end of the day, it appears that patent examiners just can't catch a break, especially if that patent examiner is Alexander Valvis, bane of Andrew Schroeder's existence and destroyer of dreams.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andrew schroeder, east texas, uspto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remarks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
would that lawyer be infringing some copyright?
"Oh, you came here for an argument you must be in room 2b, this is 'abuse'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
would that lawyer be infringing some copyright?
"Oh, you came here for an argument you must be in room 2b, this is 'abuse'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
You know, we've never seen Out_of_the_Blue and Andrew Schroeder in a room at the same time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a solution to a "problem" that is brought into existance by the "solution"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Son of a bitch you made me spit my soda lmfao.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTG, patent office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this is not even close to the example of using a stopped clock, the clock was doing it's job, and showing the right time, the lawyer just did not agree that, that was the actual time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's remember, this guy was looking for a patent on a lawn sprinkler. A few pieces of plastic or metal to connect to a hose so you can spray a wide area with water - something that has been done for as long as there has been water running through pipes. A patent from 60 years ago is nearly identical to what he was trying to patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The thing that caught my attention on this though was the:
That seems to me he made some promises to his client and a rejection shows he can't keep up those promises. If a rejection puts his career, work and dreams at risk, either he is the re-inventor of the sprinkler there or most probably he was hired on his word about his ability to get things moving, he probably charged low and made gran promises of how easy it would be to get it approved and gets angry when things don't go his way.
Morons who make promises that they can't keep are a real problem anywhere specially when they feel they are entitled to the outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Office Action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Office Action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Office Action
Mick the Nick cannot even demonstrate what a patent IS !!!
and his knowledge of patents far outstrips his knowledge of the law, or technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Patent Attorney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A more informed writer on this topic might have understood that:
1) The attorney was only saying publicly what most patent attorneys say privately - though not in the same terms. The Patent Office, with its rising fees and declining quality, can be very frustrating.
2) We don't need to put "remarks" in quotations - that's their official name. It wasn't a tongue-in-cheek heading selected by the attorney.
3) Citing 7 references isn't weird, so we don't need to emphasize it.
3a) Examiners are supposed to only use their best references and not be duplicative. So a higher number usually means the Examiner doesn't have very good references.
4) Responding to "Office Actions" is at the heart of what every patent prosecutor does.
5) Almost all patent applications are available for public inspection, so the default is to make these kinds of documents available through PAIR. I think saying the PTO "posted these 'remarks'" might confuse people into thinking the PTO specially made the documents available. Papers are "posted" as soon as they are electronically filed.
Whether we're talking about rubber-stamped approvals, or rubber-stamped rejections (like this attorney), the problem is the same: poor quality examination. The victims may be different. In this case, it's the inventors who suffer - the prosecution process drags on, gets expensive, and ultimately produces a patent with less value because it has been unnecessarily narrowed.
Having represented both Fortune 100 companies and solo inventors, I can say that the problems are uniformly distributed. The Examiner you get is more or less randomly selected. They can be 22 year-olds with a BS in the wrong field and no industry experience looking at my application that is based on PhD-level research, or they can be intelligent with the technology but be a rookie Examiner or struggle with English. Of course, there are some good ones too.
Setting the staffing problems aside, the incentives are all wrong at the PTO. Examiners need to make quotas under some twisted point system, so watch them at the end of a quarter suddenly get generous with allowances.
I think if the general public were interfacing with the PTO the way, and in the numbers, that people interface with say, the IRS, SSA, etc., we'd see more of this outrage. In the current system, I just hear the outrage from clients and translate that into respectfully written arguments. And that's how most of us operate - except for the sorority presidents that are practicing patent law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Move along then.. you don't know anything about blogging, so don't comment about it, as you aren't a blogger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now there's a person who gets blogging!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, but he clearly couldn't be bothered to spend 10 seconds looking up what an Office Action is before attempting to make fun of it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=patent+office+action&l=1
Tim thought he was making a joke, but the joke's on him since he comes across as a clueless noob writing about issues of which he has no grasp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't know what you are rambling about, but I disagree Mr. Cushing did a good job in bringing to light some facts that saw somewhere in his own words and put forth some of his opinions without the legalese language customary to attorneys speaking to each other.
If I call a sphere a ball, it is still a sphere.
Maybe your forgot common English and can't understand it, or most probably you find it offensive for some narcissistic reason either way, what I take from your comment is that something bugged you and you are angry and want to strike back at him using lame reasoning to do it along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
yes, if you replace 'comes across as' with IS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2013 @ 12:46pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apart from a handful of cult like followers most people come here to read what stupid and crazy things he is going to come out with next.
if you have read his posts over the years, it is clear he has never even bothered to look into the process's involved in taking out a patent application.
He does not WANT to know, or, not capable of knowing, one of the other.
he is either wilfully stupid, or just stupid, I tend to lean toward the later.
Mansick still believe it is the result or goal that you patent, and that patents have nothing to do with the description of a METHOD to achieve a certain outcome.
He thinks it's the outcome of the patent that is patented, not the method used to achieve said outcome.
he believes that everything that appears 'obvious' once you hear about it, must have been equally obvious before you knew about it, he thinks Watts steam engine patent should have stopped for the duration of the patent the development of patenting ANY device able to produce motive power.
'you got a patent on an aspect of a steam engine, so you cannot patent a jet engine or an electric engine' kind of thing.
it's amusing, because he just puts this crap out, and if anyone questions him, (enough) he will launch into Ad Hom attacks, but will never recant or admit his almost total ignorance.
I wonder what else his cult followers would 'swallow' from Masnick if given the chance, but I try to keep that mental picture out of my head !!!!
but it is amusing sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you suppose what Masnick says is contradictory to what you say Masnick believes and thinks, is he trying to deceive you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/04/patent-attorney-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-from-th e-uspto-anymore/
2nd page for the documents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
response letter
yes...in red...like your ass would be if you had the balls the say this in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FF3/LD8L/HFSHG299/FF3LD8LHFSHG299.LARGE.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All I can say is butt attorney is butt hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]