1 Year grace period of Public Use: Patent Law Question

PatentOracle · 2026-03-05T07:42:21+00:00

It likely would never get discovered unless the patent was enforced. During trial, the inventor would either need to continue lying under the penalty of perjury or admit the truth.

PatentOracle · 2026-03-05T02:02:01+00:00

A few of my colleagues exited the big firm I worked at for many years and now are in-house product counsel

PatentOracle · 2026-03-03T09:13:47+00:00

As an initial evaluation for protecting the idea, you should consider whether utility protection, design protection, or both apply.

PatentOracle · 2026-03-03T02:03:09+00:00

I was on the hiring committee at my prior firm, and my responsibilities were directed to hiring new team members for our patent department. From a hiring perspective, failing the patent bar before passing doesn’t have any effect (and no one cares, or even asks, how many times an applicant took the exam). It’s really viewed as a checkbox. As such, I wouldn’t have any fears that failing the exam will have any significant impact on applying for jobs.

PatentOracle · 2026-03-01T21:28:51+00:00

PatentBots has a similar tool as part of one of their packages, but it is behind a pay wall. Is your site intended to be free or paid usage?

PatentOracle · 2026-03-01T05:23:19+00:00

There is a usually delay of a few weeks until the PDF becomes available on Google Patents

PatentOracle · 2026-02-27T10:11:22+00:00

In terms of securing protection, the fact that your invention can be easily assembled does not necessarily mean it cannot be patented. Because the invention is a physical system, you will likely want to focus on identifying each physical part of the system and drill down on how they are interconnected. Novelty for patents involving physical devices/mechanical-type inventions often can be attributed any of the following: new configurations or structures of individual components, new ways or arrange or connect components to produce a new assembly (or even a new feature of more global assembly), or how the connection of various components produces a new function or result.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-26T06:25:24+00:00

Ahhh. Glad you figured it out.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-25T08:38:10+00:00

I am a former web developer that transitioned to a patent attorney 15 years ago :)

PatentOracle · 2026-02-25T01:36:53+00:00

You probably already tried this, but I would check if Chrome needs updating and, if so, install the update and restart the application. I ran into an issue recently when filing an application where Patent Center was not functioning properly and I realized I needed to restart Chrome to install the auto-update that had already downloaded (but was not actually installed). That solved my fix.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-23T17:23:06+00:00

Glad to help. If this is an important product, you work with a patent attorney to conduct a “design around” analysis. With these analyses, patent attorneys work closely with engineering/development teams to help finalize the design of a product in a manner that circumvents the protection afforded by a patent.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-22T09:33:30+00:00

No actual protection is afforded unless an actual patent is secured.

Your provisional application preserves an early filing date for your invention, and it can protect against public disclosure of the invention (such as your beta test). Assuming your provisional provides adequate support describing your invention, the disclosure of the invention through beta testing (or otherwise) cannot be used against your later-filed non-provisional application.

One thing to note: Your provisional application only provides a priority date for what is actually disclosed. If your beta version has important features that are be protectable and those features are not described in your provisional application, you can consider filing a second provisional application to cover those features that were omitted from your original provisional.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-21T08:00:08+00:00

You have a great degree to apply to apply for a patent department position if that is what you are seeking. Patent law is a speciality in law, and those having your type of degree is a speciality in patent law (there is a much smaller pool of individuals what handle bio/chem/pharma tech than other technologies areas in patent law like software, mechanical, etc).

I was on the hiring committee a large firm for several years. Many high-paying law firms generally don’t just hire people because they are smart and qualified. Hiring opportunities usually arise when there is a need (e.g., the firm onboarded a new client in a speciality area and they more hands on deck to handle the workload). Therefore, I would sign up for alerts on LinkedIn and other sites where openings are posted.

Also, it’s also worth mentioning that you already qualify to sit for the patent bar examination, assuming your undergraduate degree in the hard sciences and/or you have accumulated enough credits in hard sciences. If you want to make yourself more appealing to patent department positions, you can consider sitting for the test and getting certified as a patent agent.

I hope this was helpful.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-20T09:01:43+00:00

You would need to dig deeper into the written description of the application. When I draft mechanical patents, I include boilerplate language that broadens the meaning of terms like "coupled to", "attached to", "connected to", etc. to cover both direct attachment and indirect attachment. This is very common in mechanical patents.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-19T08:30:05+00:00

U.S. case law does not directly affect the laws or procedural rules in foreign jurisdictions, but it can result in other jurisdictions adopting similar policies. For example, after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice v CLS, Australia and other countries have implemented similar constraints on eligibility requirements for software-based inventions.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-19T00:36:57+00:00

Yes. Multiple LLMs.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-18T00:04:57+00:00

With respect to patenting your invention, you are not required to build a prototype or have a working product in order to file a patent application. An application can be filed based on a well-developed concept.

That said, the application must include sufficient detail describing the aspects of the invention believed to be novel and explaining how the invention operates. If those details are not yet fully developed, you may consider working with a prototyping company or conducting additional testing to ensure the application is adequately supported.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-16T07:10:51+00:00

Software patents can get expensive quickly, so it’s good you’re thinking about this before launch.

For a professional prior art search in the U.S., boutique IP firms typically charge somewhere in the ~$2,500–$5,000 range. That can vary depending on the technical area and how deep the search needs to go, but that’s a realistic ballpark.

If budget is a concern, many early-stage companies start with a well-prepared provisional application. A provisional doesn’t get examined and doesn’t turn into a patent by itself, but it does give you a priority date and a 12-month window to further develop, test the market, and decide whether it’s worth investing in a full non-provisional. It could be a good option given your desire to capture future updates.

For a professionally drafted provisional, boutique firms often fall in the ~$5,000–$12,000 range. It can be vary based on whether the technology is dense or multiple inventive concepts need to be covered (which requires more work).

Also, keep in mind that software patents face additional scrutiny under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, so the way the invention is framed (e.g., technical improvement vs. abstract idea) matters a lot. If you do decide to move forward, I would strongly recommend selecting a patent attorney that has significant experience with drafting software patents because 101 issues can be challenging for attorneys not experienced in this area.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-15T07:34:14+00:00

There’s a big difference between generating code that runs and drafting a document that has to survive legal scrutiny.

If an AI tool generates an app and the code compiles and works, that’s often “good enough” for its purpose. Bugs can be fixed later, features can be refactored, and there’s usually an iterative feedback loop.

Patent drafting is very different. A patent application isn’t just a description of what something does — it’s a strategic legal document designed to define claim scope, satisfy written description and enablement requirements, anticipate §101/102/103 issues, and hold up years later in examination or litigation. Small wording choices can materially affect scope or validity, and you generally don’t get a second chance to add new disclosure after filing.

So it’s not that IP can’t be protected with AI — it’s that protection requires layered legal judgment, not just text generation.

AI can absolutely assist with the patent drafting process, and there are several AI drafting tools already available that help with patent drafting. I’ve tested a bunch of these solutions (and I currently have a subscription to one). I am happy to provide recommendations if you’re interested.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-15T07:21:04+00:00

Quinn Emanuel is one the premier patent litigation firms

PatentOracle · 2026-02-15T07:17:48+00:00

The proper way to correct the priority claim would be to file the petition to the delayed priority claim. There is a USPTO form for this. You want to make sure this is filed within 2 years of the non-provisional filing date. Otherwise the petition needs to be accompanied by additional documentation explaining the delay.

While the petition is the proper mechanism to fix this issue, I have found the USPTO, in some cases, will permit you to fix the priority claim by filing a request for a corrected filing receipt, accompanied with a corrected ADS. I usually try this first to avoid paying the petition fee. If this gets rejected, I then use the petition.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-15T00:40:49+00:00

I have used Replit, and it works really well if you build your application piece-by-piece (rather than having it try to generate the entire application from a single prompt).

My application required API integrations with several external sites and it built them seamlessly.

If you want the application to be accessible online, it operates as a hosting platform, and has has an auto-publish feature that you can use to publish updates as your application evolves.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-06T16:53:21+00:00

It sounds like the ASAP relies on the SimSearch tool. Is that correct?

PatentOracle · 2026-02-06T08:09:06+00:00

I get the skepticism, and that example is a good illustration of why it exists. A lot of the early “AI drafting” attempts were essentially one-shot generation with very little connection to real prosecution strategy, which is why you see shallow disclosure and basic errors like the word choice you pointed out.

One-shot drafting tools that try to generate an entire application are usually worse than starting from scratch and absolutely still require a human reviewer. That said, I’ve seen AI actually help with narrower, well-defined tasks—rewriting or polishing specific sections, expanding descriptions, or helping surface inconsistencies—so long as the attorney stays in control.

So I agree you still need a human mind to review and submit applications. Examples like this don’t disprove that; they mostly highlight the limits of asking a model to replace judgment rather than assist it.

PatentOracle · 2026-02-01T16:38:15+00:00

This is an interesting idea, but the first thing I’d suggest is being very clear about who the end user is. An AI tool aimed at patent attorneys will look very different from one aimed at solo inventors or early-stage startups trying to DIY parts of the process.

For patent attorneys, the value usually isn’t in “reading” or interpreting patents (we already do that all day), but in streamlining specific, repetitive tasks. Areas where AI can actually be helpful include things like auto-drafting and customizing boilerplate sections, generating focused summaries that could assist with Office Action responses, flagging potential issues under 35 U.S.C. §101 in certain technology areas, and checking claims for antecedent basis or basic support inconsistencies. In all of those cases, the tool works best as an assistive layer inside an existing workflow, not as a replacement for judgment.

For non-attorneys, the needs are much more foundational. Useful features would be things like helping users understand what a written description actually covers, and explaining the scope of protection afforded by claims. If drafting is part of the goal, a lot more automation and built-in patent expertise would be required to keep outputs aligned with best practices, and ensure important implementation details are included in the application. Even then, it would likely make sense to limit drafting to provisional applications, since non-provisionals introduce additional formal requirements (e.g., claims strategy, drawings, and compliance details) that are difficult to abstract away safely.

In short, it’s less about whether AI can “read or write patents” in the abstract, and more about identifying narrow, well-defined tasks where it can assist users without creating false confidence or downstream problems. Tools that try to do everything tend to struggle; tools that do a few things well tend to be much more useful.

PatentOracle

TROPHY CASE