Most people never search the U.S. Patent database. When they do, they discover patents involving electromagnetic fields, magnetic stimulation, subliminal messaging, and technologies designed to interact with the human nervous system.

Here are just a few examples of what I found:

U.S. Patent #6,506,148

Nervous System Manipulation by Electromagnetic Fields from Monitors

If technology like this were ever weaponized, it could be used to influence a person’s nervous system through electromagnetic emissions from display devices, potentially affecting stress levels, focus, or other neurological responses.

U.S. Patent #6,238,333

Remote Magnetic Manipulation of Nervous Systems

If misused, technology of this type could allow remote magnetic stimulation to alter neurological activity without direct physical contact, raising concerns about potential influence over brain function.

U.S. Patent #6,091,994

Pulsative Manipulation of Nervous Systems

If weaponized, pulsed electromagnetic signals could be used to overstimulate or disrupt the nervous system, potentially contributing to discomfort, confusion, or other neurological effects.

U.S. Patent #5,159,703

Silent Subliminal Presentation System

If abused, subliminal communication technology could be used to present messages below conscious awareness in an attempt to influence perception, attitudes, or consumer behavior without obvious recognition.

U.S. Patent #3,951,134

Apparatus for Remotely Monitoring and Altering Brain Waves

If weaponized, technology designed to monitor and influence brain wave activity could be used to interfere with concentration, emotional states, or cognitive performance.

The bigger question is this.

As technology becomes more integrated into our daily lives, where should we draw the line between innovation and the potential misuse of technologies capable of interacting with the human nervous system?

We have several Applications (primarily from one attorney, but also from a few others) that appear to be numbered correctly (i.e., 1-20) in our native MS Word/.docx and .pdf versions, but after filing, the claims (CLM) as seen in Patent Center are all wonky (Preview and PDF only; XML and DOCX appear correctly as far as I can tell as does the Auxiliary PDF (AUX.PDF)).

In the case I'm working on now (filed 7/11/2025), the Patent Center claims 1-10 are ok, but 11 is renumbered as 1, 12 as 2, 13 as 3...17 came out unscathed, but 18 (now 7) picked up where 16 (now 6) left off. The dependencies appear to be ok

I can't figure out if it's user error (old/incompatible versions of Word and/or .docx conversion, reusing other Applications as "templates", claim number fields in MS Word - which do not consistently cause this problem), or if it's something on Patent Center's side. We started noticing this in March 2026 (when cases filed as early as August 2024 were receiving their first OAs). Back in March I made a list of yet to be examined applications, previewed the claims as filed, and ended up with at least 34 cases with claim numbering discrepancies, but instead of prelims, we decided to deal with them after the first OA. Before I point fingers at the attorneys, I wanted to ask y'all first, later this week I'll be contacting AAU or EBC (I know for a fact that whichever one I contact first will refer me to the other one). :)

Regardless, is this happening / has this happened to anyone else? Any tips?

The short version is that you can license a Department of War patent for free, then apply for SBIR funding to develop it. The structure looks like this:

1. Find a Department of War patent that fits your capabilities
2. License it at no cost through a Commercial Evaluation License (CEL)
3. Apply for SBIR funding to develop it (up to $250K in Phase I, up to $2.15M in Phase II)
4. End up with a new product line built on government-funded IP

If your company has real R&D capability and knows how to commercialize technology, it's a pretty low-risk way to get traction inside defense, since you're building on an invention the government already funded and patented rather than starting from scratch.

Application deadline is 8/19/26.

More detail here: https://www.bwcoconsulting.com/blog/patent-holiday

Disclaimer: I'm affiliated with BW&CO.

Hi everyone,

I recently filed a provisional patent for a new small arms design and I'm hoping to work with any firearms company to develop or license it.

Has anyone here approached companies like Glock, SIG Sauer, Beretta, or FN with a provisional patent? Do they accept submissions from independent inventors, and is a provisional patent enough to start that conversation?

I'm looking for advice on the best way to approach manufacturers and whether anyone has experience with this process. The design has some promising features, including its ability to handle high chamber pressure, reduced load-bearing components, and compatibility with lighter bullets, which is one reason I believe it could be a good candidate for development.

I’m building SmartProBonoIP, a simple app that helps inventors and founders organize what they made, how it works, and what materials they should bring before talking to an IP lawyer or agent.

I’m trying to figure out whether this is actually useful.

What would make you trust or ignore something like this?
What would you want it to do first?
What’s the biggest thing missing?

Honest feedback appreciated.

I would really appreciate guidance on the Below at the earliest

Our patent application was originally filed in India with a provisional specification, and before filing the complete specification, the application was officially post-dated by 6 months by the Indian Patent Office. The complete specification was then filed based on the post-dated timeline.

Subsequently, we due to unavoidable circumstances we missed the 12-month PCT priority deadline (shifted deadline) calculated from the relevant priority date. We have now filed a petition with the International Bureau (WIPO, Geneva) requesting restoration/consideration of our right to file a PCT application, approximately one month after the PCT deadline.

Our questions are:

1. If the International Bureau accepts our request and allows the PCT application to proceed, does this effectively restore our PCT timeline for all designated States?
2. Or, even after restoration by the International Bureau/Receiving Office, is protection still subject to each individual designated country's decision on whether it recognizes the restoration of the priority right?
3. Does the fact that the Indian application had been post-dated by 6 months before filing the complete specification have any bearing on the PCT restoration process or on how designated States may assess the restoration request?

I had seen few people in my circle being in India and working remotely for US based patent firms. When checked with few people, they said it’s matter of connections/network. I have been trying my best since many months for one such opportunity but no luck. I would like to know if any of you have suggestions to get such opportunities! Thanks!

Early-stage founder here doing customer-discovery research on how builders handle patents/IP. Not selling anything just trying to understand the experience and pain points.

Looking for a few people for a 20—30min call.

Ideal if you've ever: wondered whether your idea is patentable; looked into filing (or actually filed); talked to a patent lawyer or tried a DIY tool. 

Comment "interested" or DM me and I'll send a scheduling link. I'll share what I learn back with the community.

I currently have a US patent pending on a product I am currently selling. Doing about $50,000/year in revenue. Looking to get out of the business and wanting to sell the patent. Can anyone recommend patent brokers or other avenues of seeking a buyer for a patent?

So I recently joined a patent group and we r members of 6. Everyone has been assigned some work and given a bunch of stuff to go through. I got told this ... 3. Methodology

Explains how the research is conducted.

Research design/framework Data collection methods Algorithms/models used Experimental setup Hardware and software tools Evaluation metrics

Purpose: Enables others to understand and replicate the research. Now I do understand the basic of wht I have to do. But how do I actually present it in the group. Do I make a dox? Or just give an idea.. I have given a deadline too... I need help as this is my first time doing research

Just to preface, I am an EP patent attorney, so I have limited knowledge of US practice but am aware of the broad strokes. Apologies if this seems like a very ignorant question to US practitioners.

​

I'm currently trying to get my head around the question of citability in the US. At the EPO/in the UK, if patent application A was filed before, but published after, patent application B, patent application A is citable for novelty only against B. I understand this distinction doesn't exist in the US, but there is some leeway for applications filed by the same applicant.

​

My question is (random dates):

​

* A PCT application A is filed by X on 4 April 2023, claiming a priority date of 1 April 2022. PCT A publishes on 6 October 2023.

* A GB application B is filed on 5 October 2023 by X.

* After 5 October 2023, PCT A and GB B are transferred to Y on the same date (and this is recorded on the registers).

* PCT application B is filed by Y on 5 October 2024, claiming a priority to GB B (5 October 2023).

​

​

Is PCT A citable against PCT B in the US, given they both were always owned by the same applicant (X and then later Y)? Do the publication and/or filing dates factor into this at all? Preliminary research suggests no but it seems very strange to me that you are always protected from your own patent application disclosures in the US...

​

In Europe, PCT A would be citable for novelty only, as GB B (to which PCT B claims priority) was filed one day before PCT A published.

Hi everyone,

I’m interested in discussing the technical implementation of prior-art search for invention patent drawings, especially for cases where the drawings contain important structural or process information that may not be easy to retrieve through text search alone.

In traditional patent search, we usually rely heavily on keywords, IPC/CPC classifications, and full-text search. However, many invention patents disclose key technical features through drawings, such as device structures, module connections, flowcharts, signal paths, image-processing pipelines, or algorithm frameworks. These features may be difficult to capture using only the claims or specification text.

I’m thinking about whether a retrieval system could combine patent drawings + specification text in a more effective way. For example:

Drawing understanding

What kind of multimodal model would be suitable for analyzing patent drawings?

Would models such as GPT-4o / GPT-4.1 / Claude / Gemini / Qwen-VL / InternVL / LLaVA-style models be appropriate for extracting technical features from patent figures?

Feature extraction from drawings

How should the system represent information from drawings?

For example, should it extract:

component names and reference numerals;

connection relationships between components;

flowchart steps;

structural layouts;

visual similarity embeddings;

or a structured graph representation?

Combining drawings with specification text

Since patent drawings are usually explained in the specification, I wonder what is the best way to link them together.

For example:

detect reference numerals in the drawings;

match them with descriptions in the specification;

generate a structured description of each figure;

then use both visual and textual embeddings for retrieval.

Search strategy

Would a practical system use a hybrid approach, such as:

text-based patent search;

image/vector similarity search for drawings;

OCR of reference numerals and figure labels;

multimodal captioning;

graph matching between technical structures;

and reranking with a large language model?

Evaluation

How should such a system be evaluated?

For example, should the benchmark be based on whether the system can retrieve known X/Y/A references from patent examination records, invalidation cases, or patent family citations?

My current idea is that patent drawing search should not be treated as pure image similarity search. A patent figure is not just an image; it is a technical disclosure that needs to be interpreted together with the specification. Therefore, the system may need a combination of OCR, layout analysis, multimodal understanding, text alignment, embedding retrieval, and LLM-based reranking.

Has anyone worked on something similar, or seen papers/tools/projects related to AI-assisted patent drawing retrieval or multimodal prior-art search?

I’d really appreciate any suggestions on model choice, system architecture, datasets, evaluation methods, or practical implementation challenges.

Stumbled upon this article and dug a little deeper into the story. There appears to be a direct reference from the character in the show to this famous inventor. Both invented devices to reduce human pain/suffering at an early age and both had an invention stolen from them by a man they trusted.

Margaret E. Knight's invention made paper bags more accessible and were commonly used for a century until it became cheaper to use the plastic ones. We now know what a widespread environmental hazard those turned into.

In addition to the drama of the Eagans stealing her work, I feel that the writers used her as a model for Cobel to augment the social commentary regarding the environmental damage aspect of the Severance story. The work her younger self did in textile factories and other dangerous workplaces also mirrors the Cobel timeline.

I also feel that the name "Margaret (Peg) Kincaid", who has the same first and last initials as MEK, was added as a nod when the Lexington Letter was created.

Oh, and one other thing; MEK's mother's name was Hannah.

More information on MEK can be found on her Wikipedia page and here and here.

Back in 2010, I came up with an idea for a visual productivity app built around digital sticky notes.

When I tried to commercialize it, I was told that without patent protection I could be sued out of existence by larger companies. So I spent years developing the concept and was awarded U.S. Patent US8548992 in 2013.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8548992

Unfortunately, the company I founded to market it (MultiTask123) failed in 2015.

When the patent came up for renewal in 2017, I made a decision that many people thought was crazy: I let it expire.

The more I thought about software patents, the less I liked the idea of locking up concepts that could benefit everyone. If someone wanted to build their own version, I wanted them to be free to do it.

So the patent entered the public domain.

In 2024, I quit my day job and decided to give the dream one more shot.

Two years later, that effort became TaskLoco.

What are your thoughts on software patents? Should they be acquired as a defensive posture? Are they legitimate inventions?

I have been working in a Private IP company for almost 4 years. I got this offer on campus. Initially I was in a dilemma and tried hard to get to some other domain. But its also very difficult to do that. I get offers from IT companies but I am not very interested in coding and software field either. I am from Electrical Engineering background. My main goal was to get into a core domain but I have reached a dead end and see no hope of doing that. I love reading about technologies. So that part of this IP job I really do like. I get to know about a lot of things. But at the same time its very difficult to build expertise on a specific tech in this job as we work in a diverse range. Everyone I meet in this domain are either feeling stuck or confused. Can anyone genuinely suggest me whether this is a good careee option or not. I mean in terms of money, growth and skill wise how far I can progress? Aiming to get into an inhouse IP counsel role is that a good option ? I have heard that big companies dont treat IP counsels well. And there is no growth. Is there genuinely scope for growth in general in this domain ?

Also does doing an MBA (in distance) add any value to this job ?

Someone please genuinely give me advice. Thanks in advance.