> Had a quick look at the patent, had a quick look at the code. To me it appears that 99,999% of all involved research has been taken from prior research from tons of scientists.
How'd you arrive at this conclusion? The stuff in the body of the patent can be expected to be 99.99% of widely known stuff, always.
What counts is that something new is disclosed, and that is what the claims cover.
A description of a patent must be enabling: it must tell someone ordinarily skilled in the art enough to reproduce the claimed invention. Gesticulating at "you could find a bunch of the simpler steps in earlier research papers" is not good enough.
How far attorneys go to make sure a patent description is wildly varying (I remember some of my earlier ones take some time to describe what a CPU and program are...) but it's best to error on the side of caution and describe well known techniques. Otherwise, you might spend time arguing in future litigation about whether the average software engineer in 2015 knew how to do a particular thing.
True. For some of my patents, the write ups make clear that the attorneys didn’t really understand how things worked. At some point, reviewing these things, you have to say, “Yea, okay, close enough,” and sign off on it.
100% truth. People complain of AI Slop, but patent legalese Slop is 100x worse and has been going on for 100years. Absolute garbage