886
INDUSTRIAL ALVD EAVGIXEERIXG CHE-VISTRY
only the experienced and able teacher, but also the wise and helpful counselor and friend. At a recent commencement where there were a number of class reunions, the writer had the opportunity of noting the esteem and regard in which Doctor Brackett is held by his former students, t o whom he is affectionately known as “Dicky Brackett.” While his work in the field of chemistry demands the largest share of his time, he has given much attention to the work of his church and of the college Y. M. C. A. The son of a Presbyterian minister, he is a loyal and devoted member of that Church and has given much time and effort t o the restoration of the “Old Stone Church” of Oconee County, S.C , and has written a history of this notable old church as well as a historical sketch of the old Fort Hill Church, located near the college. He has taught a Sunday School class for many years and was active in the organization of the movement t o erect a handsome Y.M. c . A. building
Vol. 21, s o . 9
a t Clemson, being chairman of the advisory board which directed the project t o a successful conclusion. He is a habitual reader, and on visiting his den in his home you will find his table piled high with books and magazines, and in the midst of them Brackett, with a good cigar in his mouth, presents a rare picture of contentment. As a writer, he wields a most facile pen, and his diction is admirable, as is evidenced by some of his memorial sketches of departed colleagues, whose virtues and achievements he has so well portrayed. He is fond of music and is himself a performer on the piano, while as an outdoor diversion, motoring is one of his favorite pastimes. Although to the stranger he seems reticent and reserved, he has a keen sense of humor and is an adept as a punster. T o those who know him best, he is a loyal friend, a delightful companion, and all-around good fellow, for whom his associatcs wish many more years of service and of usefulness to his college, his state, and his profession. B. B. Ross
NOTES A N D CORRESPONDENCE In Behalf of the Patent Office Editor of Industrial and Engineerang Chemaslrj: I have been much interested in several of your recent editorials and letters to the Editor concerning the work and operation of the Patent Ofice. That office has been called, among other things, a “kindergarten for patent attorneys,” and a recent correspondent assures us that “the Patent Office is in a very bad condition and is constantly getting worse ” The impression given by the letter from F. W. Harris which appeared in your June issue is so misleading that I am undertaking t o present a more favorable view of the situation. Mr. Harris overlooked several important facts. He plotted the cases awaiting action on January first of each year, the plot showing an unprecedented total of 106,000 cases on January 1, /70,004
‘
I
I
o Aph/icafons f o r letfers p a t e n i l 0 letters p a t e n t issued Apblicaiions o w u ~ f i n qa c t i o n June30 -. of e a c h uear
x
I03 00
h‘
caused t o fall behind about three months in its work, on the average. Where formerly an applicant could wait a year before replying t o an office action and could obtain a second action within three months, he must now reply within six months and can obtain a second action only a t the end of another six months, on the average. The net result is a speeding up of the final action on those cases in which the applicant has waited the full statutory period before replying to the office actions and a corresponding delay in those cases in which a prompt response has been made. Hence, although the Patent Office is apparently further behind, the average time required t o obtain a final action is about the same. The principal hardship is placed on the applicant who wishes t o obtain quick action, but the law will undoubtedly tend to correct the frequent abuse of the privilege of waiting the full statutory period before replying to the office actions. From the fact that the above-mentioned “piling-up’’ of cases caused the office t o fall behind three months, on the average, or about 65,000 cases, it can be deduced that nearly one-third of the applicants were in the habit of taking longer than six months before replying to the ofice actions.
60 %
50% 40%
I913
I /9/5
/9/7
/9i9
/92/
/923
/S25
/927
/929
1929. (The corresponding plot for the cases awaiting action a t the end of the fiscal year, June 30, is shown in Figure 1.) He assumed that this proved that the office was further behind in its work than ever before. The reason for the recent sudden increase in these cases awaiting action is largely t o be found in the new law requiring a response t o office actions within six months, instead of a year as formerly. This law became effective May 2, 1927, and has caused both the cases t o “pile up” and the office to fall behind in its work. The first effect culminated during the six months’ period prior to May 2, 1928. The office finished acting on these “piled-up” cases only within the past five months and has been
300
200
/9N
/9/5
l9/7
.
I I919
1921
x o/desSamended rube o f each y e a r I /923
I925
IS??
,
June 30 /929
That conditions are not so serious as it would appear even from the above statements is shown by Figure 2. In this figure are plotted the number of days which the oldest new case and oldest amended case had awaited action prior t o June 30 of the corresponding years. This plot shows that prior t o 1921 the
September, 1929
INDUSTRIAL ALVD ENGIAIEERIAV‘GCHEMISTRY
oldest amended cases received more prompt action than the new cases, which latter waited on the average about 240 days before an action was made by the office. I n 1922 this period rose to a maximum of 450 days for the oldest new case and 458 days for the oldest amended case, When these figures are compared with the present (July 2) periods of 309 and 308 days, respectively, it is seen that the Patent Officeis not greatly behind its average so far as the oldest cases on hand are concerned. The upper ciirve in Figure 2 gives the percentage of the letters patent issued of the applications received therefor. I t is interesting to note that this curve tends to be a reciprocal function of the curve for the oldest cases. The Patent Office apparently follows the rule, “The more cases on hand, the larger the percentage of issues.” This fact points out rather forcibly another mistake which hlr. Harris made-namely, in assuming that the work of the office may he judged by its output of patents. In his 1925 annual report the Commissioner states, “IX‘hile the primary function of the Patent Office is to grant patents, an equally important duty is to prevent the grant of illvalid patents to delay and hamper legitimate industry.” Judging from an editorial found in your April issue, it would appear that the chemical industry may consider this latter duty as possibly the more important of the two. At least it will he admitted that it is the more difficult of the two. The total work of the Patent Office can be judged to some ’extent by the number of applications received, which are shown plotted in Figure 1. A still better estimate is obtained from the item called “general correspondence,” which increased no less than 53 per cent from 1913 to 1928 (249,021 to 381,025). One factor that continues to multiply the work of the Patent Office is merely the number of patents which it issues. Theoretically each application requires a search to be made, on a t least the first office action, through all the patents previously issued. The result, t o speak in chemical terms, is similar to that of a self-poisoning catalytic reaction. The patents issued since 1913 have increased 62 per cent, and if allowance is made for this increase of work upon the 88,500 new applications for letters patent (included within the figure of 381,025 above) received during the fiscal year of 1928, the apparent increase of work be-
887
comes 75 per cent instead of 53 per cent as estimated above. The true figure is probably somewhere between these two. This increase may be compared with Mr. Harris’ estimate of 12.5 per cent when based merely on the number of patents issued. From the lower curve in Figure 1 it would be judged that the inventive capacity of the country can be represented by a nearly constant factor of 40,000 patents annually. This is more strikingly shown when it is noted that, a t those periods when a larger number of patents were issued, the percentage of patents granted to applications received (the curve in Figure 2) shows maximum points to correspond t o these periods. In other words, the factor of 40,000 patents was exceeded only when the office was issuing a larger proportion of patents than usual. If industry wishes the Patent Office to give quicker actions, both sides of the prosecution of patents should be considered. The Commissioner, in issuing Order 2749, has attempted to speed up the work of the Patent Office as follows: “When the invention may be readily understood the first action should be complete and thorough as to merits and, where any claim is allowed, also complete as to form.” On the side of the applicant probably the best cooperation could be shown by having a thorough search made before filing an application and by eliminating those broad claims which are inserted in a case merely for the purpose of “developing the art.” This would both reduce the number of new applications and shorten the time required tolbe spent on each. It appears to be generally agreed, in the several editorials and letters published in your journal, that one of the principalcauses preventing the Patent Office from reaching its maximum efficiency is the rapid turnover, superinduced by the low salaries paid to the examiners. The total item of salaries in the Patent Office has increased 86 per cent from 1913 to 1928. This is admittedly meager considering the increase of the work and the increase in the cost of living over this period. In this respect, a t least, the Patent Office probably is “constantly getting worse,” as Mr. Harris contends. HENXYC. PARKER DIVISIOX 59 U. S. PATENTOFFICE %’4SHINGTON, D. July 24, 1999
c.
BOOK REVIEWS Properties of Materials at High Temperatures. 5-The “Creep” Strength of a ‘‘High Nickel-High Chromium Steel” between 600’ C. and 800’ C. BY H . J. TAPSELL AND J . RENFRY. 7 pages. Engineering Research Special Report No. 15. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, H. M. Stationery Office, London, 1929. Price, 6 d.
were made a t intervals and the results plotted in curves which accompany the report. From these were obtained values of limiting creep stresses-stresses giving long life-for various temperatures, which are approximately as follows: 600” C., 11 tons per square inch; ’700” C., 6 tons per square inch; 800’ C., 2.3 tons per square inch.-WALTER M . MITCHELL
The “creep” or flow strength of metals subjected t o stresses a t elevated temperatures has been the subject of much investigation during the last few years, through the development of chemical and refinery processes conducted a t high pressures arid temperatures. Considerable experimental work has been done without disclosing much of value other than our extreme ignorance of the various factors affecting creep. The present investigation was carried out in order to obtain data on the creep properties of the steel in question as an indication of its probable behavior when used for exhaust turbine wheels for supercharger units. The composition of the steel is as follows: carbon 0.46 per cent, manganese 1.09 per cent, silicon 1.20 per cent, nickel 26.5 per cent, chromium 14.0 per cent, tungsten 3.59 per cent. This analysis, namely, high nickelchromium with tungsten, is generally regarded as the most satisfactory for maintenance of strength a t elevated temperatures. To determine the “creep” test pieces 0.25 inch in diameter and about 1.6 inches long were heated in electric furnaces when subjected to various loads. Times required for failure were recorded unless these were too prolonged. Readings of creep
The Principles of Metallurgy. BY JOHN L. BRAT. 568 pages. Ginn & Company, Boston, 1929. Price, $5.80. This is a textbook presenting, as the author states, “the basic principles” of metallurgy. There are seventeen chapters headed as follows: Ores and Metals; Refractories; Fuels; Roasting; Slags and Fluxes; Preparation of Ores; Copper; Lead; Zinc; Gold; Silver; Aluminum; Magnesium; Bismuth, Tin, Antimony, Arsenic and Mercury; Manganese, Chromium, Nickel, and Cobalt; Iron and Steel; IvIetallography; Sampling and Schedules. A bibliography is given in each chapter. The illustrations are extensive, including 248 figures and photos. On page 532 the expression “bobbed up and down just a t the critical range” is as unusual in a metallurgical treatise as that one contained in a not very old patent decision where the learned judge referred to certain steels as “forged sisters.” On page 495 we read that “the silicon in plain carbon steel varies from 0.50 to 4 per cent;” then on page 536 it is stated that “our plain carbon steels contain from 0.10 to 0.35 per cent of silicon.” The second range is the correct one, of course. Under Iron and Steel the operations of the blast furnace are
