Hello fellow PIUG members.  I want to take this opportunity to introduce myself if we haven’t met and say a little bit more about my candidacy because there isn’t enough space in the “official” statement. 

My candidacy for member at-large is positioned on my being an advocate for searching.  I’ve spoke three times at PIUG meetings and presented some of the ideas that support my positions.  I provide links here in case anyone is interested.

1) Is Prior Art Valuable Service? A Corollary to Searcher Certification (5/2/2012) on PIUG 2012 Annual Conference Papers - Wednesday Afternoon.

2) Is Patent Quality Attainable (10/27/2016) on PIUG 2016 Northeast Conference Papers - September 2016

3) The Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative and Search: A Brief Timeline with Options for the Future (5/23/2018) on PIUG 2017 Annual Conference Presentations - Tuesday
Also in January 2017 PIUG submitted comments to the USPTO in response to a request for comments directed to an examiner time examination analysis.  I saw this as an opportunity to advance the idea that the PTO should separate search from examination and with the Boards permission was allowed to submit comments under PIUG auspices.   Here is the link for that document: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/etacomment_a_piug_30jan2017.pdf

Moving forward, I believe that searching is due for reform.  The current examination model employing a single examiner and no applicant input was conceived in 1836 and is obsolete.  I will advocate positions designed to strengthen the role of searching in the patenting process.  I am willing to argue at least: 1) that low quality patents are the results of substandard searching, 2) that search and examination should be separated; 3) that a solution to low quality prior art is the responsibility of both the public and private sector; 4) for amending existing rules that contribute to low quality searching;  5) call for establishment of regulations to encourage private sectors submissions; 6) call for establishment of regulations that recognize searching as substantive patenting function; and.etc.....

 I look forward to the opportunity to promote patent information professionals by arguing for search reform.  

Thank you

Robert Grantham

  • No labels