The legitimicy of whoever approved this patent needs to be questioned
Getting angry at the examiner when the patent stinks is similar to getting angry at programmers when the application stinks. Often, it wasn't the programmer's fault. Management didn't give them enough time, for example, so the programmer did the best they could given the time constraints.
And that's exactly what happens at the USPTO. Many examiners understand that patent quality is a problem, but USPTO management simply doesn't give examiners enough time to do a quality job. Mistakes will happen.
[I posted this elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38765299]
No no no, humans never do a good job of anything unless they earn a profit, which is why we need capitalism, which is why we need patents.
Also, it doesn't need to be exactly the same thing. Obviousness/103 rejections are probably the most common. (The legal definition of obviousness doesn't correspond exactly to the colloquial definition, by the way.)
The main problem is my view is the very limited time examiners get. If it's not found fast, it's probably not going to be found.
Cough, cough:
WO2006068865A3: "Method and apparatus for making a sandwich" (2004/5) https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2006068865A3/
Abstract: The present invention relates to a sandwich assembly tool and methods of making a sandwich, which may be a hot or cold sandwich, quickly by pre-assembly of various sandwich components and simultaneous preparation of different parts of the same sandwich. The sandwich assembly tool is composed of a member preferably having one or two cavities for containing a quantity of garnish. The cavities are used for the assembly of the sandwich. The tool may have a raised ridge adjacent one or both cavities for placement against the hinge of a bread component. Methods of making a sandwich] are disclosed. The methods may include one or more of the use of preasseribled sandwich fillings, assembly of garnishes in advance of a customer's order or while ether portions of the sandwich are being heated using the sandwich assembly tool, the simultaneous heating of a bread component and the sandwich filling, placing the bread component over the tool containing garnish, and inverting the tool and bread combination to deposit the sandwich garnish onto the bread component.
And meet the rest of the McCrew: https://iptica.com/patent-food-recipe/mcDonalds-patents/
... and then in 2022, McDonald's applied for 10 metaverse-related patents to allow it to deliver food online and in person, offer entertainment services...
I see people on HN confusing patent applications and granted patents too frequently. People can write basically whatever they want to in applications, and do.
I don't have time to look at the others, but you should check if patents were actually granted, and if they were, look at the "Notice of Allowance" in Patent Center to see the examiner's reasoning. In my experience, you'll usually find a small detail in the claims that the prior art lacked.
It IS true that non-patent art is incompletely searched by examiners the world over, but it's not the case that it isn't searched at all.
Not everyone who attempts to file a patent is an inventor. Some are nuisances, some are outright trolls.
We could cite patents that were actually granted that should have failed obviousness.
That is clearly wrong. If you want to broaden the argument, you might want to start a new thread.
that's not how it works. we can find plenty of rejections based on non-patent prior art.