filekey : :: :::
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
:Addressed to: June 18, 1999
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
:RE:
Notice of Public Hearing and Request for Comments on Issues Related to
the Identification of Prior Art During the Examination of a Patent
Application (Ref: #1)
:From:
Timothy Rue
I do not represent an organization, so this response is my own.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I cannot specifically answer questions 1 - 9 of the PTO
RFC (Ref: #1), The subject matter of prior art and how well it is accessed
does appear to be the general topic of concern and a concern to me. With
this, I hope to present such an "opposite end of the spectrum view point"
that you may see a much WIDER SCOPE SOLUTION DIRECTION to what really is:
A RECURRING SITUATION or ISSUE (Ref: #2).
I will do this by presenting a response to question 10:
------------------
10. If you believe that the most relevant prior art is not being
identified during patent examination, please identify any suggestions
to obviate this problem. In your response, please:
(a) Discuss in detail any idea for addressing this problem effectively;
(b) Explain how the proposal(s) should be implemented;
(c) Identify who should bear the cost; and
(d) Indicate any potential advantages and drawbacks for each suggestion.
------------------
:First My "Point of View" Concerns Related to the Current PTO RFC:
==================================================================
I have been intentionally using Usenet to create prior art evidence.
I am not one wishing to seek a patent grant but one wishing to prevent a
patent grant on something of physics and nature regarding our use of
abstractions, which requires a base in man made technology to objectively
recognize and make productive use of. (Ref: #3) Ironic as it may be, I do
believe this very thing (tool) can solve or greatly help to solve this
recurring issue.
Usenet in the current state I would say is a Hostile Environment!
However, as a value it is the only date time stamped public recorder
available.
::Two questions in my thoughts, given the current PTO RFC:
----------------------------------------------------------
1) Is Usenet searched, in dealing with Intellectual Property issues?
2) Should I need to know all there is about patents to prevent one by
establishing prior art?
::What I understand Usenet origin to be:
----------------------------------------
The origin and reason by which Usenet was created is US National Security
from the possibility of losing information in the event of nuclear or
other such attack. In other words, Usenet originated out of the concern
for protecting information, and initially done by the US government with
US Government National Security Specs, I would imagine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Given my concerns above, I realize Usenet is a very large body of mixed
information to search, as is the rest of the internet. So, The Problem...
:THE RECURRING ISSUE (MASS vs. TIME):
====================================
The RECURRING ISSUE is one of MASS (or quantity) VS. TIME. In this case, it
is regarding Intellectual Property searches. The mass of information to
search vs. the time to do it with quality and completeness.
A matter of Physics and Nature.
But this "MASS VS. TIME" issue has been addressed and solved many times
in human evolution. In recognizing the actions and sequences of actions
by which we do this, and all other things, we are provided the solution
direction for the current PTO RFC issues.
What we do with the recognized sequences of actions is to define them
to an abstraction for later use!
Simplification and obviousness may be inherent in the following,
depending on the reader, but these things need to be brought forward
so to explain the solution direction.
:What We Do First:
==================
To streamline communications (solution direction)
We "DEFINE" Things, using of course ABSTRACTIONS.
Symbol(s) = Extended Definition
(I.E. Patent NAME and/or NUMBER = extended information of patent.)
This is the most basic action we use in dealing with mass vs. time. But
now we must deal with a growing mass of "symbol(s) = extended definitions",
inclusive of sets of "symbol(s) = extended definitions" and details of
definitions.
We need to organize these for accessibility ease,
so here we "DEFINE" this term:
:Knowledge Navigational Mapping" (KNM):
=======================================
::Knowledge
That which is or may be known; information.
::Navigational
The act or process of navigating. The art or science of plotting,
ascertaining or directing the course of a ship.
::Mapping
To represent or delineate on or as on a map.
This provides us with a general picture of what we need. Still needing to
be filled in with more and more specific details. A "Focusing In" process
not so different from searching for information, but here we are filling
information or details in.
:Now we need a tool for DOING Knowledge Navigational Mapping (KNM):
===================================================================
The physics and nature of such a Tool will need to be:
* Human oriented, because we are the ones generating the "Knowledge"
and the ones needing to use it. (must be as intuitive as possible)
* Create no limitations on what knowledge may be accessed or processed
or even how it is processed, allowing the inclusion of current methods
and means. Must be versatile, able to handle exceptions, Always!
* Must not evolve in such a manner to itself become increased overhead.
Must be streamlined and consistent in use and evolve in further
streamlining improvement only when this can be done without breaking
any maps previously done.
* Must not require current knowledge content to be altered, if at all,
in such a way that distorts the knowledge. And if any alteration is
done to content, it is at absolute minimal and of such nature that it
improves the knowledge accessibility value.
* Knowledge (Abstract Symbol(s) = Extended Definition) items remain
external to the tool.
* Maps can be standardized, or custom made so to handle personal or field
specific objectives, but most important maps can be shared and even
easily combined regardless of style.
* Maps, like knowledge, remains external to the tool.
The above is more a brief reverse engineered wish list of such a tool,
but what is important is how we get to the point of looking back to see
these things are possible.
To start, we identify the fundamental SPACE and ACTIONS we use in all
things we do, and to streamline these through integrated teamwork of this
space and action set (a small finite set of repeatable actions in digital
space.) Then to provide the user with a KNM tool they can use to
dynamically automate these actions, in and on this digital space.
:STARTING AT STATIC GROUND ZERO (available space):
==================================================
Existence exists - but what exists in existence is a variable.
This is Physical Space for content placement.
Consciousness exists - but what exists in consciousness is a variable.
This is Intellectual Space for content placement.
We record our intellectual space content into physical space content,
Symbol(s) = Extended Definitions, so to later access it and enable others
to access it. The abstraction tool, computers, greatly aids and speeds
the process here, so it's digital space we are generally referring to.
:MOVEMENT ONE LEVEL ABOVE GROUND ZERO:
======================================
We Consume and We Produce.
The process of this follows the primary production triplet (also found
in programming):
"Input -> Process -> Output"
Where ever we are between kids putting blocks together, to rocket
scientists putting things together in order to figure out how to put other
things together, we put things together to produce additional sum value.
We use abstract communication (ABSTRACTIONS) to help us put things
together, including putting teams of people together so to put larger
things together. Even when working independently of each other, abstract
communication is being used between parties.
We start with building simple things and then move on to more complex
things, but all this is done by doing sequences of simple things. Simple
things that can be identified as a small finite set of repeatable actions.
When we get to the point of having to much to deal with in any given time
frame, we create above this level, that which allows us to go beyond these
limits. Overcoming the MASS (physics) vs. TIME (nature) constraints via
Symbol(s) = Extended Definition.
:MOVEMENT TWO LEVELS ABOVE GROUND ZERO:
=======================================
This is the third major time in human evolution we have reached such a
wide-scope of limitations impact. PTO recurring issues are only a part or
symptom of a bigger problem.
First, we had to move from the bicameral mind to the conscious mind to be
able to create and use higher level abstractions. Society had reached a
limitation on how much could be communicated with lower level or more
naturally direct abstractions. You can see this as moving from two points
up to one, where analytical mind + creative mind = higher abstractions.
(Tower of Babel is one event of conscious evolution conflict. REF: #4)
Second was the Abstract concept of Zero. The "nothing" of Zero being a
"placeholder" for "something." Business reached MASS vs. TIME limitations
(counting inventory, money and simple math). The Zero placeholder with the
Hindu-Arabic decimal system got us past limited Roman Numerals. (REF: #5)
This Third time it is the MASS of Abstraction Sets and use of, as over
3000 programming languages are only a part of the computer industries
contribution to the new Tower of Babel. Abstraction overload leading to
a needed solution direction of using Abstraction-Placeholders in KNM.
Even the PTO has its given vocabulary or abstraction set, as any industry
does. However, the PTO must also deal with vocabularies of many industries
and the critical mass limitations of the primary production triplet.
To overcome this critical mass limitation, we identify that the primary
production triplet can be further broken down into nine user oriented
actions on Abstraction-Placeholders, or "Virtual Interactions." (Ref: #6)
This gives us finer tuned operation and control, than the triplet alone.
Putting these nine in a logical "Configuration", for recursion control,
provides ultimate versatility, exception handling, for the user. Hence:
:The Tool: "Virtual Interaction Configuration" (VIC):
=====================================================
The NINE-(9) actions we do in all things we do are:
::1) AI (Alternate Interface)
You start or begin things and stop or end things. In doing this you
change what you interface with. Here it is the startup and shutdown of a
VIC with optional startup settings and minimal external runtime control.
::2) PK (Place Keeper)
You need to know where you are in doing something, keep track of things,
especially if you need to set something aside to do other things before
you can go back and continue. Here you keep track of the nine actions
configuration values and optionally manipulate any of these values.
::3) OI (Obtain Input)
You get things into a "holder" to pass to a "place" of use by other things.
This is one way we create symbols or "holders" for our definition content.
Usually text based definitions or sequences would be originally created
using a text editor. Here we get user input into "placeholder" variables.
::4) IP (InPut from)
You select where you are getting something from and optionally what part
to get when you get things.
::5) OP (OutPut to)
You select where you are sending something to and optionally what part
to send when you send things.
::6) SF (Sequence stufF)
You do things a step at a time, even when your doing more than one thing
at a time, each you do a step at a time. And the things you do includes
doing the nine things, but only as much as you need. This is where you
sequence sequences.
::7) IQ (Index Queue)
You look up what things mean, and use the meanings to (SF) "Sequence
stufF." Often the meaning is from a Selected Abstraction Set. What you
pass to IQ can be through a placeholder variable you create.
::8) ID (IDentify things)
Sometimes you must know what something is before you know what to do.
(I.E. to put away the variable contents of incoming boxes, you must look
at what the contents is to then know where to put it.) So, you identify
things to see what they are. Once you know what something is, you can (SF)
"Sequence stufF". What you pass to ID can be through a placeholder
variable you create.
::9) KE (Knowledge Enable)
When looking up or testing something (IQ and ID), you may only want a
certain part of it. This "KE" helps you narrow down what you want to
look up (IQ) or test (ID). When you look up a word in a dictionary,
you limit your search to the section starting with the first letter
of the Word. Additionally, you may want only a part of the definition.
Consider this like the legend key of a map, blueprint, "how to read"
instruction, etc. but applied in the space of abstractions.
::
These NINE actions can easily be made available in the form of computer
functionality, easy for us to use. With this, we can Automate the things
we do through computers by sequencing of loops and search findings
(abstract definitions access).
This Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) provides us with the gears
and bearings or carrier wave for processing abstractions.
Because our minds are acting on abstractions far more often than we'll
do through computers, our ability to see ourselves doing these things is
extremely difficult (a matter of inherent subjectivity). But by doing
these "actions on abstraction" through the tool of computers, we can be
far more objectively aware and productive with these actions.
(Also Ref: #3)
With the VIC we can organize and automate our use of abstraction sets
through the, wide scope capable, abstraction tool computers really are.
:KEY TO GOING FULL CIRCLE:
==========================
We Define Things into abstractions (symbols).
Symbol(s) = Extended Definition
The media of our "abstraction = definition" can vary from ASCII based to
binary based, to non-computer based forms such as printed text or other
non-digital based forms.
It is the definition part that we sequence here and what the nine actions
pass around, act upon, and sequence. A defined sequence that can be of any
mix of text to read or act upon, VIC action to do, programs to execute,
commands to control applications, etc. Focusing in through use of keys.
I.E. This Document itself is marked for KNM use.
The Key is optionally on the first line: 'filekey : :: :::'
and could be changed to: 'filekey : # :::'
to "focus in" the References here
or for focus on the 'bullets'. 'filekey : * :::'
For further "manual focusing in" on details of functionality see:
:::http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/IQ-1-9-1999.html
Here you will find an AREXX application 'IQ' that is a stand-alone version
of the 7th command/action of the VIC, along with other examples, more
information, details and specs about the VIC.
:In Summary:
============
Using Knowledge Navigational Mapping methods and tools to Map and Navigate
Patent and other information, will inherently help improve the Quality and
Completeness of Patent searches for Prior Art.
The main elements of KNM are:
:: Knowledge - symbol(s) = extended definition(s)
:: Maps to knowledge - where to look (search paths and loops.)
:: Keys to maps - what parts to look for (constrain to.)
:KNM Possibilities (Advantages):
================================
The VIC tool is content independent, as is needed of a tool able to handle
many different fields of knowledge.
The VIC tool is open system oriented (also see disadvantages.) This is
needed to support overall versatility and information format changes.
I cannot say exactly how mapping and navigation of Patent and non-patent
resources will happen here. But what I am sure of is that these nine
actions and the configuration (VIC) provides, in analogy would be of
symbols of mathematics. Where you know the base tools can get you where
you want to go, and it is possible to get to the same point from different
maps, and to combine maps.
Nobody knows how knowledge will be represented tomorrow or years from now
with the technology of computers. I.E. Multi-media 3D Virtual Reality
animation may be a valid means of describing an object of patent. Due to
this, it is important to have open systems so to easily enable the user
to include accessing such a "player" to run the given animation.
The PTO will develop it's own in-house use methodology, based on it's
expertise, focus and goals, just as all others will follow their own.
I.E. Given the different Patent databases both public and private and the
differences in tools and how each is optimally used, one might want to
initiate the execution of the tools they have access to, each at it's
optimum performance. However, to do so via automated sequence, for the
user to later look over or further process (focus in) the findings.
Dynamic Automation:
A sequence can be defined with placeholder variables and set in sequence
execution later, with user input requested for filling in placeholder
variables content during sequence runtime, or from predefined variables.
Vocabularies or abstraction sets you will have available from specific
knowledge field or industry, company or organization, personal preferences
and current goals. These will help you determine how "you" make use of KNM.
In mapping, you only need to reference one thing to have the option of
accessing what all that one thing in turn references.
Users in general will become skilled dual role capable. Besides search and
find (navigate), the same skill is used to insert (mapping). Though the
Patent office would have its official knowledge maps related to patents,
trademarks, etc., others will have their own custom mapping, This usage
consistency in general helps to inherently gear people to understand and
do better searching regarding Intellectual Property matters.
Perhaps the best advantage is the user is not required to sacrifice current
skill but is allowed to integrate and automate as they may, and to whatever
level or degree they want, when they want. All done by doing simple things.
Much of current existing information can be easily mapped.
:KNM Open Systems vs. Patent Incentive (Disadvantages):
=======================================================
Extreme Resistance To Genuine Open Systems! (REF: #7)
Although the VIC can work on even older closed systems, the more open a
system is, the greater potential the tool has for being productive.
Intellectual Property machinery provides incentive to pursue the evolution
of Closed Systems rather than Open Systems, though Open Systems are more
productive of solutions needed. The Closed System Intellectual Property
incentive is to protect Intellectual Property return value longer in this
fast moving industry and this inherently leads to Consumer Entrapment
Abuse and incompatibility.
Communication or "vocabulary sets" used with Patents includes heavy use
of Intellectual Property "Offensive" and "Broad Claims" incentives. Or
claim as much Intellectual space or land as you can, while doing what you
will to constrain or prevent others from finding and going to land yet to
be explored.
Ultimately, the problem here is one of personal stake in closed systems.
You might say closed system stake holders want the world to be flat, but
the world and knowledge of it is far more than just flat closed systems.
:Implementation and Cost (Advantage vs. Disadvantage):
======================================================
This Advantage vs. Disadvantage issue is one of overcoming the
resistance to genuine open systems. This is the hard part.
What is an Open System if not a system that enables the user to put
things together? Moreover, to what degree must a system enable this
before it is considered a genuine Open System?
There is a need to increase the incentive to support Genuine Open Systems.
The incentive target is perhaps the following equation:
Maximum employment rate + reduced tax dollar spent vs. advancement
constraints cause. Or - How many more people will it take to change the
light bulb tomorrow before everyone has a job? (Ref: #2 - Mr. GURAL)
A new field of Knowledge Navigational Mapping can replace that of pseudo
software engineering while increasing the call for and success of genuine
software engineering (High Integration Mapping.) (Ref: #8)
* Information mapping and Data Mining. Certainly the mapping of
information will help us better deal with accessing the ever increasing
information generation overload. Perhaps some information generators
will move to information mapping as a part of new information generation.
* Software Auto-Coding - solving the "software crisis" via dynamically
automating the dos', don'ts', standards and all other referenced
repeatable actions in the manual coding process, etc.
* Artificial Intelligence by-product illusion via automation from KNM.
Likely to Pass Ultimate Turing Test via side effect illusion. (Ref: #9)
* Current Virtual Reality will gain a boost via open system multi-faceted
mapping and navigation automation. Note: there is value potential to
Virtual Reality beyond entertainment, spanning many fields.
* Sum total of the above and beyond. Given the ease of combining maps,
such a tool will aid an increase to the rate of technology
advancement, via reduction in re-invention through automation and
AUTOMATION LAYERING and sequencing.
By allowing many more to put things together, and put new things together,
without false limitations imposed by others, the better things we will all
have available to us sooner. With this, it helps to provide incentive and
focus for doing. This is the business aspect, also of obvious inherent
logic. To consume and to produce value is what we all do, but how fast we
move forward is determined by how well we are able to do so.
With all of the above, it's easy to see that pursuing genuine Open
Systems in hardware and software user oriented modularity will also
fuel advancement by allowing more to do more!
Cost: The development of a small shell program code (abstract definition).
Public generic source code - public (government) generated.
Platform specific public source code - public and private generated.
Abstraction sets - definition sequences, maps, and keys. Created
by the spectrum of users, field specific professionals and
developers of High Integration Maps.
GUIs - the VIC being a shell, these would be custom made if needed.
But through Open System modularity and Auto-coding,
Customizable GUI tools and definitions will come about.
Improvements and Standards - the VIC tool, maps and keys will evolve
with standards for the value of standards. Common agreed upon
understanding so to get things done, but exceptions allowed.
Government Funding:
You might say I don't know the vocabularies (abstraction sets and
rules of use) of government funding. To figure this out, I would access
someone knowledgeable and experienced with such vocabularies.
Programming Talent:
Although I know enough about electronics and programming to know
there is no physical or logical constraints preventing the VIC from being
built, again you might say that I do not know the vocabularies (the use
experience) of programming well enough to create this with the ease of a
programmer having a few years of experience (3-5). I do know what the VIC
tool needs to do and I believe there is likely shell code in public access
to work from, so talent would be obtained by whatever method appropriate
and commonly used. I believe with the right programming maps I would be
able to easily create it, but that is the catch 22 for me. Although I have
aced all courses I have taken in computer electronics and programming, my
background is based in carpentry and the trade shows industry multi-talent
pool where I get a good overview of large projects and multi-industries.
:FINAL NOTE:
============
Again, it is the Knowledge Navigational Mapping Tool, the Virtual
Interaction Configuration of which I've worked to prevent a patent or
other Intellectual Property control grant from being issued on. But
rather worked to insure no exclusive rights are placed on it.
Having first sat down to use the VIC via combining existing tools (which
closed system elements or remnants prevented) I KNOW it is of the natural
law logic of the physical phenomenon of using high level (consciously
created) abstractions. Much like mathematical algorithms or more like the
primary mathematical elements. Except here, we are able to go beyond math
abstraction sets to handle abstractions in general.
:References:
=========================================================================
#1) http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/priorart.htm
The above file References "35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 (1996)"
Which can be found at: Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
http://www.inpress.com/knowbase/mpep/toc.htm
more specifically:
http://www.inpress.com/knowbase/mpep/2100/toc.htm
#2) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
PUBLIC HEARING ON TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION STRATEGY
Friday, May 31, 1996
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/techhear.txt
(The above is three years old but it provides insight into the
complexities of mapping and navigating knowledge in very real world
terms. Reading it can help one better understand the depth and width
of the current "Request For Comment" (RFC) regarding "Prior Art."
#3) Computers are unique in that they are the only man made tool which
allows us to move our thought directly into functioning reality.
Computers allow us to objectively see and use the natural laws of the
physical phenomenon of using abstractions. Just because computers are
man made and a direct application or program of these natural laws
can also be man made, should not mean the application is patent-able.
To be patented would be to indirectly own that which is not supposed
to be own-able, simply because there is no other option to so
objectively access and use these natural laws. To indirectly own
the natural laws of our ability to do things through computers, is to
cause a dictatorship effect of who can and who cannot use a computer
to be productive and make advancements using computers.
#4) Julian Jaynes - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind. Published by: Houghton Mifflin ISBN 0-395-56352-6
#5) Yasuhiko Kimura - Neo-Tech, The Philosophical Zero.
http://www.neo-tech.com/finalevo/evo-041.html
#6) The World of Elementary Particles, by Kenneth Ford. A diagram of:
"a network of virtual interactions" used here as a metaphor for
the "virtual interaction" concept we are targeting for abstraction
usage (rather than subatomic particles).
#7) It may be worth mentioning that the improved productive value of
"open architecture" or "open system" is something to keep in mind.
Consider that the Amiga, an "open architecture system" began it's
fall (*) at the time "open system" research (Carnegie Mellon
University Software Engineering Institute) was beginning to show
increased productivity over "closed systems".
[* Two consecutive bankruptcies and other pointless delays, but never
was the Amiga credited with the falls, rather it was the PC side of
these companies that pulled the company owning the Amiga down.]
This along with no real open system to replace or compete with the
Amiga as a genuine consumer level open system (**) causes eyebrows to
raise and suggest evidence of resistance to open systems.
[** Linux is the closest thing but lacking in some important ways.]
#8) Scientific American September 1994, Pg. 86, Software's Chronic Crisis
Pg. 92 -- the engineering evolution paradigm parallel pointed out by
Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University. I (Tim Rue) believe this
Virtual Interaction Configuration is the missing tool to bridge
commercialization, science and professional software engineering.
#9) If Man Created Consciousness (Julian Jaynes) | MASS=Physics=SPACE |
Then What Is The: | - - - |
KNM tool - Virtual Interaction Configuration | TIME=Nature=ACTION |
?
~~~~~~~~~~
-30-