A Brief Overview of Patents

Fundamental concepts of patents: (1) classification of intellectual property; (2) comparison between utility and non-utility patents; (3) territoriality of patents; (4) two fundamental domains of technology — ICT and BCP; (5) salient components of a utility patent; (6) salient provisions of the patent legislation of the United States; (7) formulation of a patent claim; (8) claims for independent and dependent patents; (9) essential knowledge of patent claim formats.

Classification of Intellectual Property

Patents constitute a specific form of "intellectual property." Other forms of intellectual property exist, such as trademarks, service marks, copyrights, trade names, or trade secrets, which are irrelevant to our current focus. Issues might emerge about conflicts of intellectual property or methods of harmonizing distinct types of intellectual property to benefit the industry or patent holder. One of the fundamental inquiries in the field is whether we should pursue a patent, which would entail disclosing our invention or preserving it as a trade secret. However intriguing the question may be, it is not pertinent to this work, specifically addressing the issue of patent quality.

Today, most company values in the United States comprise intellectual property and other intangible assets.

Patents for Utility and Non-Utility

The relevant patent category in this context is the "utility patent." These patents protect the specific design of an innovation, its operational mechanisms , or both. Although there are other types of patents, they are not applicable in this context. We are also not interested in patent applications that have not yet been granted as patents. Determining the value of applications before they are granted can be extremely challenging because claims may be modified or rejected entirely before the patent is issued.

Territoriality of Patents

Patents have a geographical designation, indicating their value is limited to the country where they were issued. For instance, conversely, a patent with legal validity in the United States cannot be enforced in Germany. The primary topic of this book is U.S. patents.

Fundamental Domains of Technology — ICT and BCP

Patents may encompass any form of technology that is now known to civilization. Most technologies can be broadly classified into two categories: ICT (information and communication technologies) and BCP (biotechnology, chemical, and pharmaceutical). These acronyms represent recognized delineations between two inherently distinct types technologies.

Firstly, significant disparities exist in the characteristics of different technological domains and in the consequences of patents. An inherent feature of ICT is that, usually, numerous firms contribute to a functional system. Within cellular communications, one company may specialize in manufacturing a mobile phone, another in developing a base station, and a third in producing the network controller. Nevertheless, the situation becomes more intricate as several companies may manufacture hardware or software components for the phone, base station, and network controller. A single service to a cellular telephone may involve hundreds or even thousands of patents. This intricacy is "system networking" or the "network economy." A single organization needs to concentrate on the technology necessary for the functioning of an ICT system instead of distributing it among several entities, ranging from dozens to hundreds. The ICT sectors, including cellular, cable television, and the internet, are classified as "networked industries" and are susceptible to the issue of patent ownership fragmentation among numerous enterprises. Due to this rationale, in ICT sectors, patents are more often sold, purchased, licensed, or otherwise obtained in their whole or for specific objectives to offer valuable products and services to consumers. One aspect that generates a need and desire for examining patents about patent commerce is the interdependence of hundreds of patents. Furthermore, patents in ICT are generated by a wide range of entities, including giant corporations, small firms, individuals, and exciting combinations. Hence, this factor is to be attributed to the fragmentation of patent ownership in ICT businesses. In contrast, in BCP, individuals refrain from submitting patent applications for novel pharmaceutical molecules. Hence, the diversity of individuals inquiring about the fundamental question of a patent's worth — "Is my patent of any value?" — is more pronounced in the ICT sector compared to BCP industries, although yet significant for all technological domains. Hence, and to ensure conciseness, this book concentrates explicitly on ICT patents.

Key Components of a Utility Patent

A utility patent is a government-issued right giving patent holders the exclusive right to prevent others from producing, using, or selling the patented invention. Contrary to common misconception, a patent does not grant the right to use an invention but rather a negative right to prohibit others from using the invention. Moreover, the patent does not provide provisions for the automatic exclusion of an infringer. Instead, the patent holder must employ proactive measures to prevent infringement, such as issuing a lawsuit or threatening to do so.

A commonly mentioned idea is that a patent is an offensive rather than a defensive tool. In other words, a patent can stop others from using your idea, but it does not stop others from using their patents against you unless your patent dissuades them. A patent holder can sell or license their patent, but the value transferred should not exceed the original value of the patent. Therefore, a patent holder never sells or licenses the "right to practice the invention" or the "right to manufacture the product described in the invention." Instead, the patent holder grants a license that ensures the licensee is not at risk of legal action for infringing the patent, or the patent holder sells the right to prevent others from using the invention.

The patented invention is detailed in the technical document called the "issued utility patent." A patent typically consists of three main components: (1) the written description of the invention provides a comprehensive account of the precise instructions for creating and using the invention; (2) the diagrams, often known as "drawings," illustrate the structure and operation of the invention; (3) the claims delineate the limits of the protection provided by the patent.

Key Sections Statutes of the United States

The United States patent statute is in Title 35 of the United States Code; it is necessary to know several provisions of this legislation:

35 USC Section 100 — this section provides precise definitions of terms and phrases, which are beneficial for comprehending the other parts of the legislation.

35 USC Section 101 &mdsh; subject to the conditions and requirements of this title, anybody who invents or discovers any new and valuable Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may receive a patent for such an invention or discovery.

There are two crucial areas of focus here. An innovation eligible for patent protection must possess both novelty and utility. Secondly, it must belong to one of the prescribed categories: (1) "process" — methodology; (2) "machine" — a device or apparatus; (3) "manufacture" — a product; or (4) "composition of matter" — a chemical compound.

35 USC 102

Declares that to be eligible for a patent, an invention must be "novel" — no one has previously created the identical thing (method or structure) as the object of your patent. Intellectual property developed before the issuance of your patent is referred to as "prior art;" the novelty of an invention is determined by its slight deviation from the existing prior art.

Different portions of section 102 — which I will not directly cite due to their intricate nature and lack of pertinence to our subject — outline circumstances under which the invention or discovery would not be deemed novel. Whether one of the subsections applies to the invention or discovery determines its classification as "new."

35 USC 103(a)

If the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art search are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been evident at the time the invention was made to a person with ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, then a patent cannot be obtained provided that the invention is not identically disclosed or described as required in section 102. And, in addition to meeting the criteria of novelty, as defined in section 102, the invention must also be non-obvious, as defined in section 103(a). Without section 103(a), a patent applicant could secure a patent for even the most minor and least significant modification to existing technology; Section 103(a) prohibits this.

35 USC 112

Particularly intriguing is Section 112. Although I will refrain from directly quoting it, here is the fundamental outline of its substance: (1) the patent includes a concise description of the invention and detailed instructions for its production and usage; (2) the specification must conclude with assertions that accurately depict and precisely define the protected invention; (3) independent and dependent assertions; (4) the technical definition of a dependent claim; (6) suppose an element in a claim for a combination is stated as a method or procedure for carrying out a specific function without mentioning the structure, material, or acts supporting it. That claim is interpreted to include the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and their equivalents — this is known as the "means-plus-function."

35 USC 271(a)

The provision in question pertains to the legal concept known as "direct infringement." During the patent period, an infringer is defined as an individual who, without proper authorization, creates, uses, proposes to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States or imports any patented invention into the United States.

A patent proprietor has the right to file a lawsuit in federal court against anyone who intentionally produces, uses, offers to sell, or sells a product that violates a patent claim. Typically, the lawsuit may seek damages, an injunction, or both damages.

The U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") may issue an exclusion order to a patent holder against any individual or entity that imports a product that infringes upon the patent into the United States. An action filed at the ITC is solely for obtaining an injunction, not seeking damages.

35 USC 271(b)

This clause pertains to encouraging infringement, one of the two types of indirect infringement. Below is the complete subsection: "Anyone who deliberately encourages the violation of a patent shall be held responsible as an infringer."

35 USC 271(c)

This section pertains to the concept of "contributory infringement," which further manifests "indirect infringement." According to the law, anyone who sells or imports a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in a patented process, which is a significant part of the invention, and is aware that it is specifically designed or modified for use in an infringement of the patent, and not a standard, item, or commodity of commerce suitable for significant non-infringing use, will be held responsible as a contributory infringer.

A contributory infringer is an individual who offers to sell, sell, or import into the United States a component or structure that is infringing when used with another structure. This individual is aware that the component or structure is specifically designed or modified for use in an infringement of the patent rather than being suitable for significant non-infringing use.

These three subsections, (a), (b), and (c), are crucial to understanding the many lengthy and intricate subsections of section 271.

The patent statute has the following noteworthy provisions:

Noteworthy Patent Statute Provisions

Section	Essence	Notes
35 USC 100	Predefined terms and expressions.
35 USC 101	Specifies the patentable matter. The invention must possess the qualities of novelty, utility, and alignment with one of the four specified categories.	Anything excluded from the list is not eligible for patent protection. Depicting "usefulness" is a straightforward task.
35 USC 102	Defines precisely what is considered "new."
35 USC 103(a)	An innovation must be "non-obvious" over prior art to be eligible for a patent.
35 USC 112(1)	Mandates a minimum of one "claim."
35 USC 112(2)	Requires a minimum of one "claim."	These claims establish the extent of protection for the innovation.
35 USC 112(3)	Enables assertions of Independence and Dependence.
35 USC 112(4)	Specifies "dependent" claims.
35 USC 112(5)	Clarifies the concept of "multiple dependent" claims.
35 USC 112(6)	Enables the premise of "mean-plus-function" claims.	Analysis of means-plus-function claims is addressed in Chapter 2.
35 USC 271(a)	Clarifies the term "direct infringement."
35 USC 271(b)	Provides a definition for "indirect infringement."	A specific example of "indirect infringement."
35 USC 271(c)	Definition of "contribution to infringement" (sometimes known as "contributory infringement").	An additional example of "indirect infringement."

Subsequently, there are two widely held misunderstandings that we should avoid. Initially, there was a common belief that a patent should record a profound and revolutionary development, an innovative creation. Nevertheless, groundbreaking patents, like groundbreaking inventions, are exceedingly scarce. Most patents can be classified as minor enhancements, such as methods for accomplishing tasks more effectively, innovative approaches, new applications of existing methods, or structures that eliminate components and result in cost savings. All these contributions are legitimate and valuable augmentations to technology. Though they may not be revolutionary innovations, they deserve to be granted patents, which can provide substantial value. Secondly, many people perceive inventions and patents as a form of creation that emerges from nothing, a mystical process. This phenomenon is significant as numerous discoveries necessitate a creative impulse whereby a solution is abruptly found to a formerly unresolved issue. Nevertheless, the notion that this solution arises spontaneously is erroneous.

All inventions are amalgamations of preexisting elements within the environment. Though the combination may be innovative and eligible for a patent, the existing parts are not novel. The premise that all human inventions are derived from preexisting objects does not diminish the efficacy of the invention, the validity of the patent claims, or the worth of the patents arising from the invention using preexisting items.

Patent Claim Formulation

The protection provided by a patent document is predicated on the claims granted by the patent office. One common inquiry is, "What is the extent of the claims?"

A claim consists of three identifiable subcomponents. The initial section is referred to as "the preamble," the opening segment immedi- ately following the number symbol. For example, the phrase "1. A method for communicating with a computer" might serve as a preamble.

The second component is referred to as the "transition," "transition element," or "transitional phase." The transition may be categorized into three options: "comprising," "consisting of," and "consisting essentially of." While more variations exist, they are all derived from these three fundamental choices.

It is astonishing how crucial this brief statement, the changeover, is. Thankfully, it is very straightforward to get corrected. The term "comprising" is optional, indicating that the claim will encompass all components specified in the claim and may incorporate parts or explanations from the written description or other sources. A patent with open-ended transition will encompass all structures (systems, products, devices, machines, or components) and methods that satisfy the precise elements specified in the claim, as well as all structures and methods that incorporate both the specified elements and elements not identified in the patent. This transitional term, "comprising," applies to all patents encompassing ICT and BCP. It is the transition that should necessarily be present in ICT patents.

"Consisting of" strictly refers to including only the items specified the claim, without more. A claim that includes the transition "consisting of" applies only to structures and procedures that comprise the specified components. However, such a claim does extend to structures and methods that include all the specified components and an extra element. "Consisting primarily of" refers to inclusion of the elements specified in the claim and potentially non- material features that do not affect the novelty of the invention. Transitions including the expression "consisting of" or the expression "con- sisting essentially of" must be avoided in ICT patents. In instances, two patent attorneys have insider's information that any patent agent or attorney who includes the phrase 'consisting of' in an ICT patent is engaging in professional malpractice; the inclusion of transition "consisting of" in an ICT patent would have a highly detrimental effect on the quality of the claims.

A claim's third and most concluding component is the "claim body," encompassing all elements that follow the transition. The claim body consists of two or more separate "claim elements," also known as "elements." The subsequent events following the transition are integral one of the claim parts. Under "Claim Format," the following section discusses the many types of claim elements.

Patent Claims: Independent and Dependent

The concept of independence of a claim refers to its lack of reliance on any preceding claim. As there is no preceding claim upon which it can build, claim #1 in every patent must be an independent claim. Any claim in a patent that is listed without explicitly referencing a previous claim by its claim number is considered an independent claim. Every claim that lacks independence must be classified as a dependent claim. The preamble of a dependent claim will include a precise reference to a previous claim; a specialized type of "dependent claim" is called a "multiple dependent claim." The present claim is a dependent claim that is contingent upon two or more preceding claims. Consider, for instance, modifying the above example to state, "3. The methodology of claim 1 or claim 2 further includes..." The new example consists of two interdependent claims, with the first claim being the combination of numerical values 2 and 3. The PTO expressly permits this format for U.S. patent applications but requires payment of increased filing fees.

Essential Patent Claim Formats

There are approximately twelve diverse types of patent formats, of which around half are applicable to current objectives. This work does not address the other concerns.

No patent possesses a physical structure that is absent of purpose, as in such a scenario, the "patent" would be rendered ineffective and fail to meet a fundamental criterion of 35 U.S. Code section 101. Any application that fails to accomplish any specific worthwhile objectives would never be awarded a patent or would be devoid of worth if granted mistakenly.

Similarly, no patent can accomplish something without a tangible framework. Some individuals mistakenly believe that patents exist, such as "software patents," that result in the creation of something yet do not possess any tangible form. That notion is incorrect. All inventions of this nature must possess a tangible structure as an component of the patent, as elaborated upon in the "software patents" section below; every innovation and patent derived from an invention possesses both a framework and a systematic approach or procedure for accomplishing a task. A patent may contain claims that pertain to the structure or technique. However, in all instances, the innovation upon which the claims are crafted will encompass a structure and a method or process for accomplishing a task.

Format 1 — Orientation of Structure Claims:

While several types of structure claims exist, they may be easily distinguished and understood without any ambiguity: (1) the most comprehensive structural claim is a "system" encompassing many technologies, products, or components that cooperatively function to achieve a certain objective. Such a claim is highly "inclusive" as it encompasses, as claim components, several items operating in conjunction; (2) a "product" that performs a specific function is the second most comprehensive type of structural claim. In claims of this nature, the term "product" is seldom used. Instead, the term "apparatus" is used, occasionally interchanged with "device," "article," or, less commonly, "mechanical." Each of these terms is meant to denote a structure that operates at a level lower than a system but higher than a component. Moreover, occasionally, one encounters a product category explicitly labeled as "a radio transmitter for transmitting digital data," where the "product" is indeed a radio transmitter.

Suppose the product type is given by name. In that case, the sole factor pertinent to an assessor of patent quality is whether the chosen word to describe the 'apparatus' is sufficiently inclusive to avoid potential applications. The above example pertains to a "radio transmitter." Does that pertain only to "wireless" transmitters, or does it also encompass wireline transmitters? The claims could benefit from using more precise terminology for the product type, such as "electronic transmitter" or "an electrical-mechanical transmitter" instead "radio." The former examples encompass wireless and wireline transmitters, while "radio" may refer to wireless transmitters specifically.

Within a patent, it is typical and anticipated to encounter several categories of structural claims, all of which may be grounded on a single Point of Novelty. For instance, if the Point of Novelty is an processor, then the enhanced processor may be considered as a component. Consequently, a computer equipped with an enhanced can be classified as an improved computer. Furthermore, a system bearing such an improved computer can be considered a system with enhanced processing capability. The presence of several claim types is indicative of a robust patent. Therefore, it is expected to have multiple structure kinds based on a single Point of Novelty.

Format 2 — Orientation of Method Claims:

Section 101 of the U.S. patent legislation classifies a new "process" as one of four patentable inventions. Conventional patent terminology refers to this as a "method claim." The method claim is a novel approach to implementing or utilizing a framework. In addition, the structure may be novel, therefore rendering both the structure and the method eligible for patent protection.

The structural components of method claims are consistently verbs, structured in the gerund form, as seen in the phrase "generating data; storing said data in memory cells, and accessing said data prior to processing."

Format 3 — Orientation of Software Claims

A software claim is a claim that fully satisfies two criteria: (1) it is an algorithm, a method of performing tasks, represented by a computer program; (2) either (a) the software operates on a computer or other hardware platform as an essential component of the invention, or (b) the execution of the computer program produces a measurable impact on external hardware (such as opening a valve) or yields some other specific outcome.

The subject of "software patents" is intricate, contentious, and outside the purview of this book, save to acknowledge that in the United States, such patents are permissible if they are properly drafted.

Format 4 — Orientation of Means-Plus-Function Claims

Claims based on the means-plus-function format are categorized as "structure" rather than "method" claims. Nevertheless, the claim does not specify the structure; rather, the structure outlined in the written description facilitates the function asserted in the claim. One important aspect is that the structure of a means-plus-function structure claim is revealed in the textual description rather than in the claim itself. Moreover, it is accurate to refer to a "claim element" represented by a means-plus-func- tion rather than a "means-plus-function claim," as the component a claim is presented in this unique structure. Consider, for instance, the following assertion: "A device designed for data processing, consisting of (a) a central processing unit, (b) a storage unit, and (c) a mechanism for transmitting data between the central processing unit and the unit." Within this assertion, elements (a) and (b) are conventional structural components, whereas element (c) is classified as a "means-plus- function element" due to its manifestation in the form of "means doing..." The means-plus-function form for a claim element indeed affects the possible extent of the claim, as elaborated in Chapter 2 below.

Format 5 — Orientation of Markush Group Claims

A Markush structure is a comprehensive formula or description for a related group of chemical substances; it is used in patent applications for chemistry and ICT patents. A Markush group claim specifies that the function performs for a group of X, Y, and Z or that the equipment is designated from a group of X, Y, and Z. An example of an ICT Markush group claim element is the selection of a protocol from a group that includes GSM, W-CDMA, and Wi-Fi.

The Markush style allows for the inclusion of many implementations in a single claim. Caution should be exercised if existing knowledge includes any of the implementations; then, the whole claim will invalidated. Considering that GSM is the oldest among the three wireless air protocols, any claim related to GSM already in the public domain will be invalidated, regardless of the novelty of W-CDMA and Wi-Fi.

Markush group claims are seen in BCP and ICT patents, where the patent holder desires to protect multiple potential applications without incurring costs for numerous dependent patents. This style can be avoided in ICT patents by precisely defining the relevant terminology in the written description of the specification. An example of such a group is the Markush group, which consists of general-purpose CPUs, special-purpose processors, single-core processors, and multi-core processors. If a claim utilizes simply the term "processor" and if the Detailed Description of the Invention defines "processor" to encompass "general purpose, special purpose, single core, and multi-core processors," then the Markush format is avoided.

Representing Systems with Commutative Diagrams

Innovators must consider the meaning behind the concept of a system before talking about the application of modeling systems. Defining "systems," they are collections of interacting items; every system within the development environment can interact with one another to enable a specified, solitary purpose. Objects within a system can thus reference any classification, including people, computer networking software, computer networking servers, documentation, data, etc. Examining the interactions among these specified objects inside said systems helps one to have better understanding of them overall. Given the circumstances these tests could be qualitatively shown as:

(1) Analyzing the interactions among the elements of a system; (2) Analyzing the individual object activity inside a system; (3) Analyzing the cooperative behavior of several items inside a system.

Per USPTO policy, one must understand systems by means of the analysis of their individual components to develop patent applications. Specifically, three main USPTO theories exist that could circumvent an inventor from effectively disclosing their offering of intellectual property:

(1) Dealing with natural phenomena: Section 101 of 35 United States Code; (2) Handling novelty: Section 102 of 35 United States Code; (3) Dealing with obviousness: Section 103 of 35 United States Code.

Though system analysis is difficult, humans interact with systems every day. Offering an instance for such exchanges, picture yourself walking to the bank cashing a check. Here one uses the check cashing system of the bank to make a deposit. After review, the system keeps the given check deposited as the customer's payment, together with the banking clerk who helps the customer to checkout from the bank. Creating a picture of this given situation, consider Figure 1.1:

The lines covered in Figure 1.1 focus awareness to some of the interactions inside the specified check cashing system; for every item in the given system, there is a corresponding output for which the system is meant to generate. In this regard, the output of the given system—that is, the value it offers to clients—is cash in relation to the indicated amount for deposit on the check the client presents to the bank clerk; it should be known that items inside systems can also reserve their capacity to be systems themselves.

Showing an instance where items inside a system could be objects themselves, we then turn our attention to the printer attached to a particular local area network (LAN). Close study of the printer reveals embedded discrete elements that constitute the operation of that printer in place of another one. Mechanical actuators, printer cartridges, network interface cards, TCP/IP ports, logical computing gear, etc. abound here as well. A networked printer might thus be a component of a LAN system. The functionality of the printer—that is, to print a given document—is derived from the interaction of internal discrete objects wherein these discrete items generate functionality for that printer.

Approaches to Olog Development

This part aims to explain to the reader why the approach of olog construction replaces all previous design patterns for patent application creation. Basically, compared to other natural language processing techniques, olog construction increases the likelihood of understanding and documenting systems (i.e., models).

Without the implementation of olog construction, inventors, concerning the issue of patent applications, have no choice but to fall back on significant use of natural language descriptors. In a way, the structure of paragraphs rather than symbolic structure based on graphical design demonstrated the conveyance of the function of the systems, which is the basis for patent applications in and of themselves. Here thus, the practice of a paragraph dominant structure forces the reader to interpret the purpose of the system in a linear method; denying the possibility for gaining the underlying usefulness in a time efficient manner. More precisely, someone can feel driven to create pages of prose detailing the functions of a system. Although the use of natural language descriptions is mostly used in this situation, inside a system as discussed above, there may be other systems the inventor wants to qualitatively detail.

To put it another way, the inherit linear structure of natural language documentation—which retains embedded specifics on information about object behavior—is distributed over the supplied text, thereby making the mapping concepts inside the content challenging. Together, the inherited linear structure of natural language documents causes the information about objects and their behavior to be scattered throughout the text and makes it difficult to map documented objects back to real- world objects in the system. Showing the intricate interrelationships between natural language text and system objects, Figure 1.3, as seen below, captures this challenge.

Natural language might have been sufficient for describing tiny systems, but by itself it has been shown to be too vague and inaccurate for describing systems of the size and complexity required today.

Patent experts have consequently looked for other analysis approaches that clearly formally convey system properties.

Structured analysis is a common method of study that aids in enforcing rigor and lower uncertainty. Analyzers of this kind characterize systems as a network of interacting processes. The method comprises a description of the data the operations use. One records these data descriptions in a data dictionary.

Though the process oriented approach has sometimes produced results, some issues have become known. Usually, these issues cause analysts to enter design too early. One issue is that the data dictionary elements relate more to system implementation than to an abstraction of objects in the scope of that system. Furthermore, the data dictionary is sometimes seen as secondary in relevance, which reduces its value in helping analysts to focus on component analysis of the system. Another issue is that the emphasis on the procedures could cause analysts to focus on the specifics of how handling should be done. This method guides the analyst away from researching system components and their interrelationships toward researching how the system might be built and used. Emphasizing "how" results in designed oriented research of the system typically before the system is thoroughly understood.

Some methods that are based on data try to get around these issues by setting up processes based on system objects. This kind of organization puts an emphasis on objects, but it only groups activities based on objects. There are still no relationships between the items. Most data driven methods are just object oriented process oriented systems that are put together.

With olog construction, the focus is on things and not on processes. This makes it easier for an analyst to focus on "what" rather than "how." It is easy to describe a system's necessary functional features, but that is not more important than finding system objects and how they relate to and affect each other. This method makes it less tempting to jump straight to design.

There are also levels of abstraction that cannot be found in other methods that are part of olog construction; olog construction tech- niques offer generalization and classification in addition to grouping, which is something that many methods do. These concepts make it even easier to understand how information is set up in terms of objects.

Representing Reality with Commutative Diagrams

It is not enough to focus on Olog construction and model-driven development. A model for research must also be able to easily show how things really are. If ideas must be squished into an analysis model in a way that does not make sense, the model does not have enough descriptive power. It is possible that shoehorning will be needed during system execution, but it should happen during design, not analysis. It is hard enough for an analyst to do research and development (R&D) without also having to turn thoughts into a system model that is too limited.

Take an analysis model that does not let an item do more than one thing at a time as an example. Now, try to explain how a simple computer printer that loads a new sheet of paper while printing through the current sheet works at an elevated level. If objects only did one thing, we would have to stop printing to see how much paper is left, and then we would have to stop for longer if more paper needs to be added. You could also make up other objects, like a print mechanism and a loader mechanism, that do not necessarily show internal sharing. But how far should we go? What if the print method shows even more concurrency? If we try to break down the thing we are interested in too much, we start planning how to implement it instead of analyzing it. A model for analysis that can show multiple actions happening at the same time for a single object helps the programmer avoid breaking up objects too soon or not needed during analysis.

Systems analysis models and methods were first created by people who worked in software engineering. As a result, analysis models have grown to include software development models, which have their own limitations. It can be hard to fit square pegs into round holes when you are doing systems analysis with a model made for software engineering. Just like we must cut off the sides of a square peg to make it fit into a round hole, we must cut off important ideas to fit our views into models that only look at certain things. When we use extended development models to analyze a system, we must use development language concepts to describe all its actions and objects. Even objects and acts that are not going to be used need to be developed in some way. In the case of analyzing an air traffic control system, for example, even though they are not part of the end software for the air traffic control system.

The idea behind our olog implementation model is that we want to show truth instead of some kind of development language. For instance, we let our modeling parts record anything important about the system that a researcher wants to. In this way, we have tried to get rid of our biases about growth. The olog implementation model tells an analyst to show systems the way they think about them, without worrying about how they will be put into action.

Analysts aren't mathematicians. Analysts shouldn't have to write down what they understand in first-order predicate calculus or any other very rigid language. Analysts should be able to make notes, draw pictures of ideas, and build models without having to worry about turning those things into formal math.

Although formal expressions of system characteristics are required in olog implementation, the underlying concepts of olog implementation are based on formal definitions of system data and behavior modeling. Analysis through the construction of system models whose modeling constructs are based on formal definitions for several reasons: (1) formal definitions can be used to build models that can be used to test the integrity of models and, to some extent, the completeness of a study; (2) because formal model description makes sure that interpretations are consistent, it can help the development team talk about how they understand the system; (3) for the same reason, a model with a formal base can also make it easier to talk to people who aren't on the programming team.

Systems Development

Olog construction is a new way to collect and arrange information that is essential for creating and using patent applications. The method focuses on understanding the system and writing it down. Drawing up a mental picture of the subject being studied is the first step to understanding it. The olog implementation document that was made makes it easier to design and build patents in a consistent way. For example:

MAIN CHASIS PARTS-LIST & EXPLODED-VIEW OF A GRADIENT AMPLIFIER

PyTorch Workflow Fundamentals for the PatentPrepper© Claim Construction Assistant

In this module we're going to cover a standard PyTorch workflow (it can be chopped and changed as necessary but it covers the main outline of steps).

Get learn how to use the PatentPrepper™ Patent Claim Construction Assistant below!

Download the Claim Construction Assistant Here

How to Implement the PatentPrepper© Claim Construction Assistant

First and foremost, we have to use Huggingface to download the PatentPrepper™ trained model for ready-available use for patent claim generation. More specifically, we must clone the PatentPrepper™ model from the Huggingface repository; the URL for that repository is shown once you click the green-button that is located directly above.

Before we download the repository from the given URL address, we must do some "pre-processing" first. Most importantly, we must install Git and Git LFS into our computer for our computer to handle the download command being sent to Huggingface and having Huggingface serve that download request to use (the users).

Unfortunately, there is no direct command to install Git and Git LFS on Windows. However, you can download the Git and Git LFS installers from the Git website: https://git-lfs.github.com/

Once we have done our "pre-processing" we can now download the PatentPrepper™ Claim Assistant from Huggingface using the command (of the operating system of your given computer):

git clone https://huggingface.co/patentprepper/patent_claim_assistant