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: old - ::: 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) The above file References "35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 (1996)" Which can be found at: Manual of Patent Examining Procedure more specifically: #2) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PUBLIC HEARING ON TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION STRATEGY Friday, May 31, 1996 (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. #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-