Non-final rejection was on 2009-10-09. Response submitted on 2010-01-20. I haven't read any of it but you can look up application number 11/741429 at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.
Two bases for the rejections: one for lack of statutory subject matter (no machine or transformation under Bilski) and one for obviousness (combining an article about patent trolling with the PTO's prosecution manual makes the claimed method obvious).
With regard to subject matter, the applicant makes two arguments: (1) patents are like personal property, so they satisfy the "transformation of matter" prong of Bilski; and (2) one of the steps involves computer research (basically, Google searching), which involves a machine.
With regard to obviousness, the patent applicant argues that the prosecution manual does not contain all the steps of the claimed method.
In my mind, the big issue is that the applicant most likely wrote the claims up based on what other patent trolls have done before. Besides the fact that this means that his claims are anticipated by prior use, it means that he is not the original inventor of the claims, making them unpatentable.
"[0012]The inventor and the assignee of this patent have no intention of applying the techniques described herein offensively but instead intend to use the patent defensively to discourage patent trolls and the like from extortionist practices."
That's actually quite a brilliant hack. I wonder, has it ever been done?
X launches a patent-trolling suit to try to get in on Y's patent. These guys launch a countersuit at X for using their patented technique, stalling the original suit. The best part is, the evidence for the countersuit is already known to the court...
From a cursory examination it looks like it's pretty close. Although this patent seems to be broader than just patent trolling. It looks like it's a patent on asserting patent rights in any situation predatory or non-predatory.
After reading so many patents in the past week, I've learned a few things such as: "the title is meaningless", and "patents are densely worded and difficult to comprehend for somebody not versed in legalese"
So, are there any patent lawyers in our midst who can attest to the meaning of this patent application? Is this actually what it appears to be?
Only if a patent on patent trolling was set up up so that it could be used by everyone. I'm guessing its possible somehow to grant a license to use a patent to every person, living or dead, now or in the future for an unlimited period of time.
Methods for a first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party are disclosed. The methods include obtaining an equity interest in the patent property. The methods further include writing a claim within the scope of the patent property. The claim is written to cover a product of the second party where the product includes a secret aspect. The methods further include filing the claim with a patent office. The methods sometimes include offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include asserting infringement of the claim by the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim. The methods sometimes include negotiating a cross-license with the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim, where under the cross-license the first party obtains a license to an intellectual property right from the second party. The methods sometime include attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim.