Innovators write up their idea using a template provided by the patent committee (PC) - this asks the key questions about idea, business value, novelty, related work etc. This is then entered into the system and queued up for the review process. Typically in order to do this, you need to have approval from your manager (because reviewing/filing costs money so prioritization is key) and need to have it witnessed by folks (to ensure that this was in fact YOUR invention)
The committee schedules it for review and allocates a subject matter expert to review it with the innovators. There is usually 1 tech reviewer (for idea novelty) and 1 business reviewer (for ideal value). They both meet with inventors and have a discussion at which time they enter their ratings (privately) into the system for the PC to see.
The PC meets and actually reviews all the drafts on their schedule. Innovators do a quick 2-minute review and PC members can ask for additional details etc. but then innovators leave. At that point, the reviewers provide feedback and everyone discusses/votes on it.
The most important thing is to have that talk with the reviewer and be as candid as possible. They are your voice in the PC meeting (after you leave) so you really want to have the longest conversation you can with them. If you are a first-time innovator ask your PC which inventions are on the docket for an upcoming schedule - then reach out to one of those scheduled and ask if you can sit in on the inventor/reviewer meeting. You will learn a lot by just understanding how they approach the issue.
Second thing is to recognize that very few of your ideas will actually make it past the PC and that's okay. It's not that they aren't good or novel. It's the fact that they may not be a priority for the current product, or that their business value is unclear or ... or .. or.
Bottom line is that at least for me innovating was not about the IP but about the process of finding a problem and solving it with some out-of-the-box thinking, then writing it up in a way that articulated value to a broader class of problems. So keep writing them and you get better each time - and at the very least it influences the way you approach architecture later.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
In my experience:
The patent review process was 3 steps:
Innovators write up their idea using a template provided by the patent committee (PC) - this asks the key questions about idea, business value, novelty, related work etc. This is then entered into the system and queued up for the review process. Typically in order to do this, you need to have approval from your manager (because reviewing/filing costs money so prioritization is key) and need to have it witnessed by folks (to ensure that this was in fact YOUR invention)
The committee schedules it for review and allocates a subject matter expert to review it with the innovators. There is usually 1 tech reviewer (for idea novelty) and 1 business reviewer (for ideal value). They both meet with inventors and have a discussion at which time they enter their ratings (privately) into the system for the PC to see.
The most important thing is to have that talk with the reviewer and be as candid as possible. They are your voice in the PC meeting (after you leave) so you really want to have the longest conversation you can with them. If you are a first-time innovator ask your PC which inventions are on the docket for an upcoming schedule - then reach out to one of those scheduled and ask if you can sit in on the inventor/reviewer meeting. You will learn a lot by just understanding how they approach the issue.
Second thing is to recognize that very few of your ideas will actually make it past the PC and that's okay. It's not that they aren't good or novel. It's the fact that they may not be a priority for the current product, or that their business value is unclear or ... or .. or.
Bottom line is that at least for me innovating was not about the IP but about the process of finding a problem and solving it with some out-of-the-box thinking, then writing it up in a way that articulated value to a broader class of problems. So keep writing them and you get better each time - and at the very least it influences the way you approach architecture later.