1. New System: From “first to invent system” to the “first to file system.”

“The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, signed into law on September 16, 2011, profoundly changes the U.S. patent system by awarding patents to the first inventor to file an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Thus, in order to protect an idea, inventors of all sizes need to file patent applications before their competition.”

2. Public disclosure can preclude inventor from obtaining a patent even if you file first:

If someone other than inventor patents, discloses in a printed publication, use the invention in public, places the invention on sale or “otherwise” makes it available to the public anywhere in the world before the effective filing date it will be a bar. file This rule has been referred to by some as creating a ‘first to publish as long as you file within a year’ system rather than a true first to file system”

3. When law takes effect:

“The ‘first inventor-to-file’ law will take effect on March 16, 2013 (18 months from passage) and will apply to new patent applications filed on or after that date.”

4. First inventor to file not who invented first:

“For priority purposes, only the date of filing will need to be determined, not the actual date of invention.”

The Electronics Age began as far back as the late 1800′s and, like many major advances in civilization, was the result of the separate efforts of a number of individuals whose actions, collectively, set the stage for change.

In this case the stage for change was set primarily by 4 individuals whose creative actions took place on both sides of the Atlantic over a period of about 20 years.

On January 27, 1880 U.S. Patent No. 223,89 (PDF) was granted to America’s most famous inventor, Thomas Alva Edison, for an electric light bulb in which an electric current could be passed through a carbon filament in an evacuated glass bulb, heating the filament to incandescence.

In his research, Edison is reported to have tested 6,000 filament materials. (Since then, the drawing of the light bulb in this patent has become an icon for Edison and his inventive genius.)

After his patent issued Edison continued to work on improvements to his light bulb. In 1883 he inserted an extra electrode into one of his light bulbs and found that when the electrode was maintained at a positive potential an electric current flowed through the vacuum from the filament to the electrode.

Edison failed to understand the phenomenon, but following his usual practice, he recorded it in his notebook. He named it the Edison Effect.

Although he found a use for it and actually patented as an Electrical Indicator (U.S. Patent No 307,031 PDF), he missed the real significance of the unusual flow of current through a vacuum and soon directed his attention to other inventive pursuits.

As a result, for the next few years, the Edison effect remained primarily a little known laboratory curiosity. However knowledge of the Edison Effect gradually spread and triggered a chain of events in the U.S. and England, over the next 20 years, that significantly changed the world we live in.

In 1897, an English physicist, Joseph John Thomson, discovered the electron with its negative charge. In the next scene in this drama, details of Thomson’s discovery reached John Ambrose Fleming, formerly an assistant to Edison who, by the late 1890′s, had become a professor of Electrical Engineering at University College, London.

Knowledge of Thomson’s discovery of electrons suggested to Fleming that the nearly forgotten Edison Effect was the result of a discharge of electrons from the incandescent carbon filament, and the passage of the electrons across the vacuum to the extra electrode.

Lee Deforest

Based on his analysis of Edison’s work, and the knowledge of Thomson’s discovery, Fleming invented the vacuum tube diode, wherein the carbon filament was surrounded by a positively charged cylindrical metal plate electrode.

When the filament was heated to incandescence electrons were emitted and traveled through the vacuum to the metal electrode only if it was positively charged. This meant that Fleming’s vacuum tube diode could convert alternating current to direct current thus serving as a rectifier for the electronic devices yet to come.

The final episode in this saga was the contribution of an American inventor, Lee Deforest. Building on the work of Edison, Thomson, and Fleming, he added a metal grid of fine wire between the filament and plate of a Fleming diode to form a vacuum tube triode.

When the grid was positively charged it amplified the flow of electrons. It was the first electronic amplifier. In 1907 he was granted U.S. Patent No. 841,387 (PDF) for his invention.

DeForest was a prolific inventor. He received more than 300 patents, but none was as important as the “audion” (the name he gave to his vacuum tube triode).

With this episode the Electronics Age began.

President Obama signed the American Invents Act at Thomas Jefferson High School in Alexandria, Virginia on September 16, 2011. The new patent law will replace the current “first to invent” system with a “first inventor to file” system.

So now it is more important than ever to be the first person to file a patent application. Nobody can say you did not invent it if you’re the first person to file a patent application.

But is this good for the independent inventor? Or is it good for the big Corporation? Independent inventors are strapped by cash constraints, inability to manufacture and distribute a product. Big companies have the ability to race to the patent office and file applications as soon as they come up with new ideas.

That’s why now it’s more important than ever for inventors to have the ability to file a patent application quickly and inexpensively. If an inventor loses the race to the patent office they will most likely lose their rights to get a patent and protect their idea.

Here is a video of the president actually signing the “American Invents Act” into law:

On August 16, 2011 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued patent number 8,000,000 to Second Sight Medical Products, Inc. but even though it was number 8,000,000 it wasn’t really the 8 millionth patent.

The first United States patent was issued, signed by George Washington himself, in 1790 to Samuel Hopkins for his invention of potash. But based on the current patent numbering system, US Patent No. 1 was granted to John Ruggles in 1836 for a type of train wheel.

So why there is a discrepancy between the first patent issued and patent number one?

This question is answered in an article written by my deceased friend and co-author of the book Patent Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers. This article was originally posted by the United States Patent and Trademark office 1997 and therefore is part of the public domain. I thought it might be interesting to the reader’s of PatentHome so I re-posted it here:

Has Logic Been Used in Patent Numbering?

By, Thomas T. Gordon, Esq.

X patents are the patents that issued between the start of the patent system in 1790 and a major revision of the patent laws in 1836. Those patents were not numbered at their issuance, but have been assigned a number indicating their order, with a letter X before each number.

In 1836, the patent laws were amended to make several basic changes in the system. The registration of applications was abolished and a system of examination was ordered, and the office was required to keep a record of all patents issued. This recording system established the use of numbers and the issuance of Patent Number 1 on June 13, 1836.

Within about 7 months after the issuance of Patent 1, the first anomaly occurred, the issuance of a patent on a Knitting Machine to John McMullen and Joseph Hollen, Jr., with the number 126 ½. Patents 126 and 127 exist. Why did this patent get this odd number? Was there a logical reason?

A more drastic change in the numbering sequence occurred in 1861. In that year, a new numbering sequence was started using the number I again, and continuing onward. Later in 1861, this system was stopped, and the office returned to the numbering system established in 1836. They were forced to renumber all of the patents that had been issued in early 1861.

If one looks at these patents, you will see that the “new number” is listed first, and the number of the 1836 series is listed below. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) for many editions carried a table for correcting these anomalous numbers. The1861 system of numbering also applied to the design and reissued patents. What was the reason for changing of the numbering system in 1861? It is not known, but logic prevailed and the old system was re established.

The use of fractions in the numeric system has reared its ugly head many times. Those patents have been termed the “fractional patent series.” I was first introduced to this anomaly some years ago when I was actively prosecuting applications. I received an Office Action rejecting my invention based on U.S. Patent 2,712,152 ½.

When I first read the cited rejection, I assumed that the ½ was a typo. Upon looking at the enclosed patents I found the patent, and learned it was not a typo. Upon questioning the examiner, he said,

“It is a real patent. If you do not believe it, go to the microfilm files and look there!”

I discussed this numbering with examiners as well as other practitioners. Very, very few knew about them I learned from a technical man of the PTO search room staff (now retired) that he had a list of some 30 fractional numbered patents, but was not complete. He showed me a card file which listed fractional patents, and I was amazed to learn that there existed patents with numbers using halves, quarters, eighths, and even a twelfth. Why was this done? No one I questioned knew any real answer.

One of the most logical answers I received was that a patent had been awarded to a man in his 70s who was quite ill and wanted to see the patent before he died. Could the Office issue the patent quickly? Perhaps this was the reason for some of the fractional numbers, but when I found 126 ½ and found it issued to joint inventors, that logic went somewhat out the window.

I assembled a list and a file of about 40 fractional patents. It should be noted that all of the fractional patents I located were on the microfilm in the Public Search Room.

The fractional patents raise questions other than their oddities in numbering. They are prior art, but they cannot be accessed in our computer systems. The systems allow only 7 or 8 spaces for the numbers to be entered, and how does one enter the fraction, when no fractional keys exist on the computer keyboard, or spates to enter’ 1/2? There have been statements from our “experts” that all patents are in the data base, but how do we locate the fractional patents? If they cannot be located, than a computer prior art search may not be complete and true.

Widen the archive copies of the patents were brought to the PTO some yews ago from their storage caves in Pennsylvania for digital scanning, I was told that the operators were quite surprised at the number of fractional patents they found. They did not specifically make a listing of them, as they had no reason to do so.

Let us hope that logic will prevail in the numbering system, and no more fractions, or decision to re¬number, are tried again without consideration of the problems created. Also, let us hope that the computer networks can be modified to access the fractional patents, and help establish a data base of all numbered U.S. patents.