plint-todo.md

plint to-do list

• plint 1.0
  • Swith plint to use ConfigParser as INI allows for comments?
    • https://docs.python.org/3/library/tomllib.html#module-tomllib
      • Requires Python 3.11, which is fairly recent so this couldn't run on the ancient version of Python 3 that the USPTO has (3.2). ConfigParser would be fine otherwise.
      • FreePascal supports INI out of the box: https://wiki.freepascal.org/Using_INI_Files
  • Add link to plint repository in README.md file.
  • "claim element" to "element" for simplicity.
  • Rewrite plint to use object oriented programming to simplify data access. Do this simultaneously with adding tests.
    • claims: a dictionary of claim objects
      • claims[number].elements_with_indices
      • claims[number].element_set
      • claims[number].category: (apparatus, method, etc.)
      • claims[number].parent: parent claim number
      • claims[number].children: children claim numbers
      • claims[number].all_children: all children claim numbers
    • spec
      • spec.elements_with_reference_numbers
      • spec.element_set
  • Reorganize code to have unit tests for everything including the antecedent basis checking.
    • particular claims.csv entries
    • antecedent basis
      • "the" before "a"
      • multiple "a" for same element
      • dependencies get new elements
      • all elements found in a long claim
      • all elements found in a dependent claim
      • {, [, }, ], |, !, @, and # work
  • Make certain claim rules for apparatus or method claims only? APPARATUSONLY and METHODONLY?
  • 90% branch coverage
  • run through linter and fix code
  • Get elements from specification based on reference numbers. \bthe\s[\w\s]+\s\d+\b (but this won't match the smallest; might be easiest to simply scan the specification by words)
  • Add command line flag to disable checking CSV files.
  • Detect whether title is vague. Check length of title in words after removing vague words, stop words, and duplicate words? Convert list of words to set and then filter. 4 words or less?
    • https://www.reddit.com/r/Patents/comments/x9r64k/should_a_patent_title_be_very_narrow_or_very/
  • If the first word is a vague word then it's probably particularly vague.
  • --warn-all or -Wall for plint to turn all warnings on (--uspto, --ant-basis, --restrict, etc.)
  • Put files in standard Python package format.
  • Put plint on PyPi.
  • Have a Makefile to make a USPTO version of plint for installation.
  • Make claims.csv entries plural for many or all of the pluralized terms in vague-title-words.txt.
  • "feature", "example", "implementation" instead of "embodiment": modify species election checker to handle
    • US20220055457A1
  • predefined ==> like predetermined
  • If foreign document is incorporated by reference, that is improper. plint can detect this.
    • FP 06-19
    • Examples: 17/062,837 (20210116149), 17/022,927 (20210148606)
  • most comprehensive (narrowest) claim detection for USPC classification; has most elements
  • Submit plint for approval by OCIO.
    • If OCIO rejects it due to dependency on Python, rewrite in Object Pascal. It might be nice to have a TUI.
  • linting: https://www.b-list.org/weblog/2022/dec/19/boring-python-code-quality/
  • percent and ratio can be ambiguous if what they are relative to is not specified
• After release of 1.0:
  • Ask which features people would like for a patent analysis tool on r/patentexaminer, r/patentlaw, and r/patents.
• Scan spec for elements with reference numbers. Use that to try to fully automate the antecedent basis checking. Also produce a list of unclaimed elements like The Examiner did.
• Make plint write the office action for certain parts if checked off.
• Don't use assertions for error messages.
• Change species election analysis to be per sentence, not per line.
• 17223417 claim 19: "[feedback value]s" probably should return a warning.
• Have different warning severities, and allow the user to ignore all warnings below a certain level.
• \b(capable|programmable|configurable)\b: Suggest programmed/configured/etc. as -able does not require that the prior art actually perform the stated limitations, just that it is capable of performing the stated limitations.
• 101 streamlined analysis? computer readable medium without non-transitory should be amended to say non-transitory
• many drawings indicate that a species election is likely
• No transitional phrase (comprising, consisitng of, etc.) then claim is likely either purely functional or intended use.
• Restriction enhancements:
  • Look at overlap of -ing and -ed words in case the actions differ between claim groups?
  • Look at overlap in wherein/etc. clauses?
• list most frequently mentioned elements to get an idea of what's most important to find when searching
• https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/12/10/patent-drafting-anatomy-patent-claim/id=75575/

  • Third, the first time you introduce a limitation (i.e., an element, characteristic, internal reference, etc.) in a patent claim you MUST introduce it with either “a” or “an”, as is grammatically appropriate. (i.e., Primary antecedent basis). Subsequently you refer to the already introduced limitation by either “said” or “the.” (i.e., Secondary antecedent basis). This can be quite difficult for beginners because the three most common words in the English language — a, an and the — are all terms of art for patent claim drafting.

  • "Primary antecedent basis" and "secondary antecedent basis" seem like good terms. I should use those terms in plint and its documentation.
• https://www.knobbe.com/blog/preamble-found-limiting-where-it-supplied-antecedent-basis-other-claim-limitations
  • In plint, detect when antecedent basis comes from the preamble and give a warning that this may make the preamble limiting.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20010107193500/http://artexam.com/examiner_overview.htm
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20010211093238/http://www.artexam.com/examiner_known_limitations.htm
• Identify claim elements that are in sentences identified as having lexicographic definitions as these could be defined contrary to the ordinary meaning.
• Identify similar claim elements that may be identical but not claimed identically. For example, 17/218,554 mentions a "gas" that may be the same as the "air". This could lead to a 112(b) rejection as it's unclear whether the "gas" refers to or includes the "air".
• Add command line argument to state that certain claim elements are equivalent for the restriction analysis. For example, "outer barrel" and "barrel" are equivalent in 17/083,825.
  • The easiest way to handle this would be to have a list where every element mentioned is excluded from the restriction analysis entirely.
  • Note in the documentation that these elements won't be listed as common to each claim group, even though they are, because they've been completely removed.
• Check spec for figures that aren't discussed. That could indicate a 112(a) issue.
  • https://groups.google.com/g/misc.legal.moderated/c/04WqcZJSwN8/m/fsQiC_AgYiMJ

    • it would be handy if it would tell me that I failed to discuss a figure

• Check boilerplate list for more terms to add to plint.
• "Use" claim detection: Method or process without word "step"? Method or process claim which is short?
  • Check for dependent use claims.
• 112(d) examples: 16078994
• 15567564 112(b) rejection: Reference to standards needs to define organization name and date of the standard to be definite.
• Automatically identify old elements that don't have "the" or other terms in front of them to check for missing words. Example: 17180146 claim 20: "wherein air circulation unit is configured".
• Consolidate claims.csv by identifying duplicate messages and putting rules in alternative form, for example: \b(X|Y|Z)\b vs. separate rules for \bX\b, \bY\b, and \bZ\b
• Make plint automatically recognize all of (for example):
  • one or more widgets; the widgets; the one or more widgets
  • a plurality of widgets; the widgets; the plurality of widgets
• Sort claims by number of dependencies. Search in order of most dependencies.
• How to better catch issues like "slits and grooves" in 16481894 not being automatically recognized by my antecedent basis checker?
  • clips: The vehicle air purging system of claim 5, wherein the support member defines integrally formed clips extending outwardly therefrom to couple with the vehicle body. (16775312)
  • slits or grooves, slits, slit: The air diffuser device according to claim 1, wherein said baffle element comprises peripherally open slits or grooves which are open at the peripheral edge of said baffle element, and/or wherein said baffle element comprises peripherally closed slits each having a bridge portion in the peripheral region for bridging the gap at the peripheral end of each slit. (16481894)
• Contingent limitation detection. Contingent limitations can be satisfied if the condition is never met. See 2022-05-20 non-final rejection for claim 9 of 16773873. MPEP 2111.04.II. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html#d0e201000

  • The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.

  • Some examiners don't like "if"?
  • http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,30711.msg142871.html#msg142871

    • People have commented here in the past that "if" is a bad word to use in claims. "When ... then" is apparently the preferred phrasing.

  • MPEP 2111.04.II Contingent Limitations
  • http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,31185.0.html
  • http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/28/beware-conditional-limitations-when-drafting-patent-claims/id=87242/
  • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/09/conditional-claim-limitations.html
• Don't use assertions for error handling. https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1091
• Possible 112(d) rejection if dependent claim introduces no new claim elements and has no wherein/similar term.
• Detect duplicate claims in plint. 17138554 claims 9 and 17. MPEP 706.03(k)
• Interactive mode (like aspell) allows marking warnings as resolved/skipped, and the resolutions/skips are kept in a file.
• Get claim elements from spec. Use the number to determine when the claim element ends.
• Check for actual profanity in the claims and spec as these are likely typos.
• Detect mixed patent claim types. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
  • https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2173.html#d0e218855
  • https://www.mriplaw.com/blog/fwrjj8zsioafxif96o2yn4u3an5pb2
    • The HTC example suggests that an apparatus claim written like a method claim can be interpreted as having functional limitations even if something like "adapted to" is not written in there as I would prefer for clarity. The courts apparently don't think the implicit "adapted to"/etc. makes sense when user actions are described. Is the system adapted to have functionality in response to those user inputs? I don't see why not given that's how they seem to interpret the non-user-input limitations. So I don't really follow the court decision here based on the little I've read.
  • https://www.kirkland.com/publications/article/2017/11/mastermine-mixed-claims-and-ways-to-avoid-indefini

    • If a system claim contains an active verb within a limitation, prospective challengers may focus on disentangling any method-like steps from system limitations. The more a challenger can make a method-like step resemble a standalone limitation, the more likely the Federal Circuit will find the claim to be indefinite for claiming two distinct statutory categories.

    • If a system claim recites user input, a challenger should likewise argue that the limitation requires active user engagement with the system. The greater the lack of clarity over whether it is a system or apparatus itself or the method of using it that triggers infringement, the greater the odds of claim indefiniteness.

  • https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/11/03/federal-circuit-indefiniteness-mixed-subject-matter-claims/id=89903/
  • https://www.chandlerip.com/?p=379
  • The case law suggests user input is a particular issue for this:
    • (users!|callers!)
    • (inputs!|inputting|inputted|enters!|entering|entered|selects!|selecting|selected|selection|receives!|receiving|received)
• Add expectancy to JSON input file. Make plint list number of hours to allocate to searching based on the number of words in each claim.
• (fluidly connected|fluid connection)
  • http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=31706.0

    • As I use it, fluidly connected means that fluid is able to flow from one component to another, but the two components need not be physically connected to one another. For instance, a vehicle radiator is fluidly connected to the engine cooling jacket, because coolant is able to flow from one to the other, but they are not physically connected.

  • I tend to view it as "the two points are connected by a fluid", not that there is flow from one point to another.
• Make example outputs in the README file automatically generated.
• Have option to print associated line numbers in claims.csv for each warning.
• above, below, higher, lower, larger, smaller ==> if numerical, suggest less than or greater than
• examples where "with" is okay: in accordance with, with respect to, associated with
• option to output cleaned claims (without markings)
• Result effective variable (REV):
  • e.g.: may be varied, are varied
  • (may OR can OR are) ADJ2 (vary OR varied)
• similar to predetermined: (set OR pre$1set OR specified OR pre$1determined OR user$1specified)
• looking for number ranges: between OR (from ADJ2 to) OR "in the range"
• Looking for motivation: "in order to", possible, advantage, enhancing, enhancement, enhances, improve, improving, improves, advantageous, need, difficult, enabling, solve, problem, deficiencies, unfortunately, problematic, desirable, provide, provides, improved, adverse, beneficial, benefit, hence, therefore, reduce, without, allow, solution
  • advantag, enhanc, improv, enabl, solv, problem, provide, benefi
  • common advantages: simple, construction, design, allow
• In Asian water heater patent documents:
  • tapping = outlet/hot
  • return = inlet
  • see KR101429896B1 ("a temperature sensor 5 for detecting hot water temperature"; "5: Temperature sensor for tapping temperature detection")
• Analyze abstract for compliance with rules.
• The title and abstract in the JSON file don't have to be files; they can simply be the title and abstract themselves. If the title or abstract variables end in .txt, then the associated text files will be read instead.
• From PE2E DAV on abstracts:

  • No legal phraseology found by system-scan

    • MPEP 608.01(b): > The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided.
      • means, said, comprising

  • No implied phrase(s) found by system-scan

• Redundant in abstract:
  • MPEP 608.01(b): > It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc.
  • US7291497B2: > The invention relates to
• Sort DAV search string by number of appearances.
• For --spec, also check that each element has a reference number. If an element does not, that could indicate a drawing objection is needed for that element.
• Figure out how to make \b(?!such |so )that\b work. With this I intended to match all instances of "that" but not "such that" or "so that".
  • \b(?<!such\s|so\s)that\b: > sre_constants.error: look-behind requires fixed-width pattern
  • https://stackoverflow.com/a/50550499
  • https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/regular-expressions-cookbook/9781449327453/ch05s06.html
  • https://stackoverflow.com/q/20089922
• Check that term is in external dictionary.
  • https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/glossary/index.htm
  • https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/authoring-tools/terminology
  • schecter_using_2013 fig. 2 is nice.
• Formality_Checklist_not_508.pdf
• Create spec.csv for warnings in the spec.
• Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting.pdf
  • Start at p. 13.
• https://www.blinn.edu/writing-centers/pdfs/Vague-Words-Tables.pdf
  • Start at "Good/Great".
• https://www.logic.at/lomorevi/LoMoReVI/The%20Vague%20Expression%20of%20Quantity.pdf
• https://www.google.com/search?q=inherently+vague+adjectives
• https://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_regexp_whitespace.asp
  • use \s instead of space
• Add an intro to regex in the docs:
  • https://javascript.info/regexp-quantifiers
  • https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Regular_Expressions/Cheatsheet
  • \b
  • \B
  • \w
  • \s
  • \d
  • .
  • *
  • +
  • ?
  • {n}

  • "B followed by 2 vowels followed by ld" → "B[aeiou]{2}ld"

  • alternatives like (case A|case B)
  • not matching these cases like \bup to (?!including|excluding|and including|and excluding)\b
  • matching anything between: .*, (.+?), \w*, others that are more narrow?
• Check existing rules to see if they can be made more narrow with the ?! notation to exclude certain valid forms. I recall wanting to do something like this before but not figuring out the right regex.
  • Things with the message "Possible indefinite parameter if type not specified" could meet this. For example, "volumetric flow rate" should not match but "flow rate" by itself should match.
  • Also, check things with messages like "Possibly indefinite if what the aperture/apertures is/are in or between is not stated." "aperture in" should not match.
  • "Possible relative term. Could be indefinite if not stated in reference to something else. See MPEP 2173.05(b).": For example, "greater than" should not match but "greater" by itself should.
• Ambiguity detection
  • MOSTLY DONE: gleich_ambiguity_2010
  • berry_from_2003
    • p. 20
  • femmer_rapid_2017
  • http://www.gray-area.org/Research/Ambig/
  • https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/foundation-studies/feedback/ambiguous
  • https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/ai/ambiguity.html
    • https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/WinogradSchemas/WS.html
  • https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/CC3BFEEB-C364-E1A1-A5390F221AC0FD2D/ambiguity.pdf
• http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/staffpriv/ok/nominals.htm
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization
• https://medium.com/analysts-corner/six-tips-for-writing-unambiguous-requirements-70bad5422427
• https://medium.com/analysts-corner/holy-ambiguity-crapman-ec15c77dc880
  • Discusses why minimum and maximum can be indefinite.
  • On the indefiniteness of minimum and maximum, also see: berry_from_2003
• Check for invalid multiple dependencies.
• Check for features of other softwares.
  • https://specif.io/bluepencil/
    • https://appsource.microsoft.com/en-us/product/office/wa104381917?tab=overview
  • https://antecedent-ip.com/product/aip-patentchecker/
  • https://www.bots4ip.com/product/inspat-proofreading-patent-claims/
  • https://patentpal.com/
  • http://www.lanaconsult.com/products.htm#AutoPat
  • https://groups.google.com/g/misc.legal.moderated/c/04WqcZJSwN8/m/fsQiC_AgYiMJ
  • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/
    • Sources for warnings: "MPEP and Landis on Mechanics of Patent Drafting"
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/tag/patent-proofreading-tools/
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/tag/patent-drafting-tools/
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/tutorial-checking-claims-for-antecedent-basis-issues/
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/patent-drafting-without-section-112-errors/
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/helpdesk/knowledgebase.php?category=7
    • <https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/help/Syntaxforcustomrules.html
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/help/Stylisticerrors.html
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/help/Rulesettings.html
    • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/patent-drafting-without-section-112-errors/
      • patent profanity
  • PatentOptimizer
    • https://www.lexisnexisip.com/knowledge-center/avoiding-section-112b-rejections-with-patent-drafting-tools/
    • https://www.lexisnexisip.com/knowledge-center/patent-tools-for-avoiding-office-actions/
  • PatentBots
    • https://www.patentbots.com/patentoptimizer-alternative
• Check papers for more ideas.
  • "Patent Claim Structure Recognition"
  • "The "UNLIMITLESS": On How to Remedy the Inadequacies of a Language-Based System for Patent Claims"
• Check classification for patent documents on patent analysis for more ideas.
• Check for synonyms of the relative terms you already have for more.
• With --spec, one could use proximity to 112(f) terms to determine which elements are functionally defined. Then one could count the number of times that element is mentioned in the specs to get an estimate for how detailed the description is. If it's not presented in detail, then that could lead to a 112(a) or 112(b) problem.
• With --spec, could also check for patent profanity, but that's low priority as it wouldn't help me as an examiner.
• Add --stats to print out the number of words in each claim and other statistics.
• Add ability to annotate the claim to ignore a particular word for the warnings file. Add this to the documentation after doing so: If a user wishes to prevent rules from being applied to a particular word, they can add "#" to the beginning of the word. For example, they could change element to #element.
• Look at typo for ideas: Statistical method of finding mistakes in patent claims? https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6593963
• Look at readability indices to identify convoluted parts of claims to double check.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability
  • https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46759492/syllable-count-in-python
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_readability_index: No syllables needed.
• Detect ranges of numbers, print warning when multiple are found in one claim as that could indicate a 112(b) issue. For dependent claims, check that the range is fully within the range of the independent claims. See TC 3700 112(b) refresher for examples.
• Print some checks for equations like dimensional homogeneity, no singularities.
  • \b(equation|formula)\b
  • =
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity#Mathematical_notation
    • The issue with trig. functions is common.
  • https://www.reddit.com/r/patentexaminer/comments/vrjxz8/how_to_quickly_spot_112b_indefiniteness_issues/ieye8q5/
• 101 rejections: Claiming a human:
  • MOPP 14.131: ""when in use", "when held by an operator"
    • https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-14-the-application
  • https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html
  • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/12/ex-parte-kamrava.html
    • embryo
  • https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jbbbl-2021-2002/html?lang=en
    • fetus
    • embryo
    • chimera
    • human
• https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/system/laws/rule/guideline/patent/tukujitu_kijun/document/index/02_0203_e.pdf
• vague terms, check how defined in specs or else they might have 112 issues: amount, quantity, substance, material, device, module, element, member (could be 112(f)), quality, data, degree (14355159)
• Think about how to reduce the amount of manual annotation needed.
  • Get ends of claim elements from numbered elements in specs? Scan specs for text between a/an and a number?
• Check for preamble-limiting terms. Annotate the end of the preamble to find them? First punctuation mark ends the preamble?
  • https://www.patentclaimmaster.com/blog/tutorial-checking-claims-for-antecedent-basis-issues/
  • https://www.knobbe.com/blog/preamble-found-limiting-where-it-supplied-antecedent-basis-other-claim-limitations
  • http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,32443.0.html
• http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,32339.0.html
• https://patentdefenses.klarquist.com/particular-and-distinct-claims-aka-indefiniteness-sec-1122b-other-than-sec-1126f/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/patentexaminer/comments/vrjxz8/how_to_quickly_spot_112b_indefiniteness_issues/
• basis, based on
• https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/glossary-initiative
• concreteness data
  • brysbaert_concreteness_2014
    • 13428_2013_403_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
  • https://www.reilly-coglab.com/data
  • https://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/school/mrcdatabase/uwa_mrc.htm
• contronyms
  • https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/words-own-opposites
    • clip
  • https://www.dailywritingtips.com/75-contronyms-words-with-contradictory-meanings/
  • https://www.dictionary.com/e/s/contronyms/
  • https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:English_contranyms
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-antonym
• Add commonly misunderstood words to plint. Lots of phrases you can find under "ambig" in the bmtreport diction file.
• Enablement
  • Detect prophetic examples.
    • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/06/disclosed-embodiments-prophetic.html
    • MPEP 2164.02
    • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/07/recent-prophetic-example.html
• terms of art, particularly units
  • \b(standard|normal)\b: check if there is a standard
  • volumes!
    • for flow rate (e.g., US app. nos. 17099005, 16950528)
    • for mass: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439247
    • some also use amount for volume, so perhaps that should be covered here too
  • "head" (length) instead of pressure
  • Btu or kcal when actually Btu/hour or kcal/hour
  • scfm (with no actual standard) vs. mass flow rate
    • http://btrettel.nerfers.com/archives/72
    • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439304
    • \b(scfm|standard cubic feet per minute|standard cfm|normal cubic metre|normal cubic meter)\b
  • confusion of quantities and rates:
    • https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=7224
    • https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=7368
  • \b(standard|normal) (temperature and pressure|pressure and temperature|temperature|pressure|temp\.|pres\.)\b
    • \b(STP|NTP)\b
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_temperature_and_pressure
    • not ambiguous: negative pressure (if known whether static, stagnation, dynamic, total, etc.)
  • \b(?!absolute |relative |specific )humidity\b
    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_day
• \b(operably|operatively)\b
  • For example: operably coupled
    • \b(operably|operatively) (coupled|connected|coupling|connecting|joined|joining)\b
  • Possible functional language.
  • https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_10-cv-06763/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_10-cv-06763-0.pdf
    • INTELLECT WIRELESS INC.
    • operably connected:
      • "two elements work in concert to create an inflatable chamber, e.g., one which is not air tight but can receive and hold air"
      • "capable of performing work on effecting the movement of"
      • "connected in a manner that allows a signal to flow from one point to another point"
• \bfor\b - possible ambiguous reference?
• similar to shaped: (form|formed|pattern|patterned|contour|contoured)
• Think about how to automate these 112(b) rejections: 17214846, 16544191, 16521534, 16488177, 15337325, 16461817
  • 112(d): 16029634, 16948610
• Check for similarly named claim elements to help spot typos. Example: 16461817 2022-04-19
• --endings flag: Possibly functional: \b\w*able\b words
• --endings flag: Filter out these non-adverbs: https://www.wordexample.com/list/ending-ly-not-adverbs
• https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/10/07/patent-drafting-101-say-mean-patent-application/id=88962/
  • (heating|cooking) [...] (to|at) (a|the) temperature
  • (heated|cooked) (to|at) (a|the) temperature
• As a joke, add CPC classes below the version number in the README.md file.
• --unity for unity of invention analysis. Requires marking the novel elements in the claims with @.
• trademarks
  • \bband.aid\b - adhesive bandage
  • \b(bubblewrap|bubble\swrap)\b - inflated cushioning
  • \bchapstick\b - lip baum
  • https://www.rd.com/list/surprising-trademarked-words/
  • https://digitalsynopsis.com/advertising/generic-trademark-product-brand-names/
  • https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/28238/25-words-you-might-not-know-are-trademarked
• https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/practical-considerations-and-strategies-in-drafting-u-s-patent.html
  • " or ",'A or B' is to be interpreted as 'either A or B'.

  • Another example shows the importance of carefully choosing alternative language when drafting claims. In Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.,5 Kustom Signals added the limitation “selecting either a greatest magnitude or highest frequency search” to the claim during prosecution and later sued Applied Concepts for patent infringement. But Applied Concept’s device searched both magnitude and frequency. The Federal Circuit reasoned that “or” is not “and/or” and the claim only covered a choice between either one of two alternatives, not both. The Court then affirmed a ruling of noninfringement by Applied Concept’s device. The outcome was indeed unfortunate for Kustom Signal, but it could have avoided the problem by carefully drafting the claim to read, for example, “selecting at least one of a greatest magnitude search and a highest frequency search.”

  • http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,31337.0.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy
  • https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22016273/list-of-polysemy-words
• Replace \b(between|from\s(.+?)\sto\s(.+?))\b with a similar rule that requires numbers to be present.
• automatically, portion, others
  • https://patentdefenses.klarquist.com/how-construed/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/patentexaminer/comments/xiopeg/qas_error_examples/ip4g766/

  • CRM claims without “non-transitory”. A reviewer doesn’t even need to go through the abstract idea steps in an Alice 101. Without “non-transitory”, it’s an easy layup 101 that most reviewers won’t miss.

• Make screencast on your USPTO computer showing how to use plint. Upload to YouTube.
• Detect short/vague abstracts as well, in a way similar to that for the titles.
• Have HTML output
• https://www.reddit.com/r/Patents/comments/vtsp3w/conversation_inadvertently_left_in_a_patent_spec/
• https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/06/19/wherein-clauses-patent-drafting-pitfalls-avoid/id=162502/

Specification

Make patent drafting diction database. Put appropriate case law in the comment. Label as "patent profanity" as that term seems to be in common use. If unclear about why someone included a particular term, ask on the Patents Stack Exchange.

• Google search for "patent profanity" (no quotes).
• Include relative phrases.
• "Trans fat" problem with "patent profanity": a term is replaced by something that is untested and could be worse. (Analogous to trans fats being used to replace saturated fats, when trans fats are worse.)
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20090210131413/http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/02/no-no-words-what-words-do-you-avoid-in-patent-applications.html#comment-6a00d8341c588553ef010537160bf1970b
  • https://www.ssiplaw.com/112f-has-a-hair-trigger-avoiding-means-plus-function-misfires/

    • For computer-implemented inventions, patent practitioners may wish to consider using the term “circuit” or “circuitry,” when appropriate. Circuit or circuitry has consistently been found to be term that connotes structure.

    • ...but the root of the problem is vagueness, not the particular word used: > While “circuit” or “circuitry” may help avoid interpretation under § 112(f), it is advisable to provide a detailed description with sufficient structure and, as applicable, sufficient description of algorithms, to avoid a finding of indefiniteness in violation of § 112(b).
• "etc." could be 112b issue and also signals that you should list more possibly embodiments, for example, this is not good as it does not list a condensate drain as a possibility:
• https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/19186/why-not-refer-to-the-invention-as-the-invention
• https://patents.stackexchange.com/a/3295
• https://corridorlaw.com/words-to-avoid-when-filing-patent-applications/
• https://krajec.com/prohibited-words-in-a-patent-must/
• https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/patent-profanity (Added, but it would be a good idea to recategorize the terms in your diction file along the lines described in this article.)
• https://sites.nd.edu/patentlaw/2013/02/04/patent-profanity-its-not-what-you-think/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090210131413/http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/02/no-no-words-what-words-do-you-avoid-in-patent-applications.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090211234220/http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/02/no-no-words-what-words-do-you-avoid-in-patent-applications/comments/page/2/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090405094459/http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/02/no-no-words-what-words-do-you-avoid-in-patent-applications/comments/page/3/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20090406011742/http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/02/no-no-words-what-words-do-you-avoid-in-patent-applications/comments/page/4/
• https://patentablydefined.com/2007/05/21/prosecution-profanity-words-to-avoid-in-prosecution-part-1/
• https://www.bpmlegal.com/content/howtopat7
• https://ocpatentlawyer.com/lesson/word-invention/
• https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/practical-considerations-and-strategies-in-drafting-u-s-patent.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_legal_terms
• https://www.fargopatentlaw.com/blog/2020/12/31/what-is-patent-profanity

  • Some of these terms include the words, “all, always, certain, each, important, invention, necessary, need, should, and so forth.”

• stark_key_2016
• https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/03/consisting-and-optionally.html
• https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/17485/how-do-i-explain-the-advantages-and-avoid-using-invention-or-object-in-the-d
• predetermined
  • https://www.mriplaw.com/blog/rq5dxcegaabvgmqfblhce7dsbl6ktn
  • https://steiniplaw.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/federal-circuit-defines-term-predetermined/
  • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2006/12/even_under_doe_.html
  • https://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/04/strengthen-assurance-practices.html#comment-290640
• http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php?topic=13014.0
  • Includes a comment about why "the invention" can be safe in some instances.
• http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,31656.0.html
• https://antecedent-ip.com/product/aip-patentchecker/
• https://patentlyo.com/patent/2022/07/boilerplate-admissions-eligibility.html
  • conventional, well-known, well known, known in the art (perhaps "known" by itself)
  • If the information is well known, then not saying so in a patent application is a way to increase the chances of being granted an invalid patent. If the information is well known then someone could easily challenge the validity of a patent. I don't like strategies that are basically ways to be granted invalid patents.
• Detect criticality in the specification.
• Have two CSV files for the specification. One looks for things like limiting phrases which are not relevant to patent examination. The other looks for things like criticality that are relevant to examination.
• Lexicographic definition identification for spec.
  • \bmeans (?!for|to)\b (to reduce false positives, though likely this still has many false positives)
  • Check for quotes? ", “, ”
  • US20200208875A1 para. 0055: > Here, the heat-insulating side plates 61 are used with the meaning of side plates to which the heat-insulating pipes 50 are disposed to be adjacent, rather than the meaning of side plates that reduce the amount of heat transferred to the outside, thereby achieving thermal insulation.
    • This one was annoying!
  • Print entire line with definition in the output? Many lines will have multiple matches, so probably best to first identify all matching lines, and then print those lines. That would avoid duplicates.
  • https://www.djstein.com/IP/Files/Landis%20on%20Mechanics%20of%20Patent%20Claim%20Drafting.pdf

    • As used in this description and in the appended claims, the word X means Y.

  • https://patentdefenses.klarquist.com/how-construed/

    • Use Of “i.e.” In Spec. Or Prosecution May Be Deemed Definitional

  • https://old.reddit.com/r/Patents/comments/xtpwwg/how_do_you_define_a_term_in_a_patent_specification/
    • Update plint to recognize lexicographic definitions using terms mentioned here.
• Separate DAV search string for the spec?