OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I wasn't suggesting magnification. I'm sure these all work the same. I'm saying it's neat looking because it resembles a spyglass or scope. whereas the Swift & Anderson is square.
The Lugzsonian - A Virtual Tour
- Thread starter Private Lugnutz
- Start date
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Thanks for confirming our educated guesses about Swift & Anderson supplying these to the Army, probably the Corps of Engineers, LS. We're very happy for you and not at all envious.
Thanks, but I have them. That's where I got the cropped image of the guy using one in my post. Appropriated it from an ePay sale.
RTM
Well-known member
Well, apparently I was doing something wrong before. I swore I could rotate the projection of the level by rotating the brass end, but that obviously doesn't work now that I am trying to do it (corrected above). Mine has no magnification, and does not work well in poor light. Mine is ~7/8" through the body tube.
Here is a look down the barrel, I was in level, but juggling phone and scope and trying to keep things level and lined up is apparently a bit beyond my skill set this morning.
Edit, here is an updated photo, with something holding the phone to the levelscope, and hand holding it to level, and setting the exposure to the bubble, not the black. And cropping it down a bit.
Last edited:
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Hmm. Only one dead level reticle. And another cylindrical one like Outlaw's Frese. One thought on that. These are hand sights. But you can rest the S&A on a stand because it's square.
Outlawmws
Well-known member
Mine has that reticle, and a flat on the ocular so you can set it on something - presumably that something is at a known level to ground so you can sight on something in the distance.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I see it now! Nice design.
RTM
Well-known member
Yup, as I noted, was a pain in the **** to photograph through the eyepiece. I had a nice tripod standing nearby for my telescope, but chose not to use it due to the effort of removing the scope, and minimal benefit with a round bottom.
Looks like mine is a Locke Hand Level in the 1921 catalog
Catalogue of Eugene Dietzgen Co. : Eleventh Edition : Eugene Dietzgen Co. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
488 p., illus., 22.8 cm, trade catalog
archive.org
RTM
Well-known member
I think I see a "JAN. 1. 1901." underneath the logo, and that was a Tuesday (patent day). Unfortunately, DATAMP is not helping. They have sixteen (16) patents in their database on that date, but none of them are any kind of wrench. They have ninety-six (96) bicycle or pocket wrenches, but none of them have a Jan. 1, 1901 patent date.
Following up on this idea after it popped up in the bicycle wrench thread, I looked for companies who used a diamond in their logo, then poked into DAT to see what was there. The two A's were
Ashdown Hardware (a Canadian concern) maker
Armstrong Brothers, which says " Five Armstrong brothers (George, John, Hugh, Paul, and James) made bicycle parts and tools from 1890 onward. .... those tool holders and whatever bicycle tools they made initially are their only known pre-1900 tool products. Figure of an arm holding a hammer in a diamond shaped box (not quite what we need)
AA has them listed as using an A Triangle logo, which doesn't help.
Just another dead end rabbit hole so far.
four.cycle
Well-known member
again, as I mentioned in the "bicycle" thread, there's always the possibility that "A in a diamond" was a maker of bicycles, not wrenches, and then there's also the possibility it could be from "across the pond" (although a patent date stamped like that kind of does away with that theory.) the other possibility (which I've seen far too many times) is that the wrong patent date is stamped on the unit.
and... to reiterate another point I made in that "bicycle" thread: I think there are a whole lot of these little "bicycle" wrenches out there that we will never figure out - just looking at the list of bicycle makers is enough to make your eyes glaze over - and a whole bunch of them had their names stamped on wrenches.
and... to reiterate another point I made in that "bicycle" thread: I think there are a whole lot of these little "bicycle" wrenches out there that we will never figure out - just looking at the list of bicycle makers is enough to make your eyes glaze over - and a whole bunch of them had their names stamped on wrenches.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Forget the wrench. I am devastated! The USPTO has apparently abandoned its old retrieval tools. Clicking on this 'View Patent Full-Page Images' link...
...now takes you to a new search tool!
Noooooo!
Searching PDF Image Patents (Since 1790)
Searches are limited to patent numbers and/or classification codes for pre-1976 patents....now takes you to a new search tool!
Noooooo!
Irritating, for sure.
The one change that would improve what was there would be to display an image tile of the patent drawing. 99% of the time, that’s all you need to match a physical specimen, and all the f-ing arbitrary class codes present an unnecessary learning curve for the occasional researcher.
The one change that would improve what was there would be to display an image tile of the patent drawing. 99% of the time, that’s all you need to match a physical specimen, and all the f-ing arbitrary class codes present an unnecessary learning curve for the occasional researcher.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
My thoughts exactly. "The new, powerful, and flexible capabilities" of the new Public Patent Search tool may "improve the overall patent searching process" just as they claim, but I don't need or want to search! I just want to look up patents for which I already have the number, a utility the old PatFT provided just fine.
I wrote the help desk an email.
I wrote the help desk an email.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
It's not just a learning curve issue. At this point, I wish that's all it was, in which case I would try to learn fast. Unless my curve is so steep it's not even on the curve, I think the issue is worse. I don't think it's designed to search on patent numbers! Because why would it? if you think about it. Who would use a search tool to find a patent you already have the number for!? All the fancy Boolean expressions for finding patents by function or mechanism or materiel or topic etc that an inventor would use it for are not just overkill. They omit patent numbers! The whole premise of the tool is that you don't know the patent number.
I tried to enter several patent numbers in the 'Enter query text' field. The tool is so "good", it will find those numbers - unfortunately, they are coincidentally part of larger meaningless identification or serial numbers for secondary and tertiary documents in invariably very recent patents that have nothing to do with the patent you're trying to retrieve. You can't make this up.
I tried entering a US before the patent number. I tried entering 0's before the number, matching it to the syntax of the irrelevant patents it does return.
I wish someone else would see if they can figure out if it can be used just to assuage my shred of self-doubt.
four.cycle
Well-known member
email sent 10/03/22
contact link is on the USPTO page
email is free, guys.
hammer 'em.
BK
contact link is on the USPTO page
email is free, guys.
hammer 'em.
BK
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Oh, by the way. Searching on well-known names is no better.
I just tried searching on "William O. Thewes" and "Thewes" (the inventor of the Ridge Tool Company style pipe wrenches) which returns a 2022 patent for: "Macrolides With Modified Desosamine Sugars And Uses Thereof". Why? Because way down the "prior art" citations list, in 2008, was some other Thewes.
Tried several other well-known patents and patentees.
This tool is not a retrieval tool.
I just tried searching on "William O. Thewes" and "Thewes" (the inventor of the Ridge Tool Company style pipe wrenches) which returns a 2022 patent for: "Macrolides With Modified Desosamine Sugars And Uses Thereof". Why? Because way down the "prior art" citations list, in 2008, was some other Thewes.
Tried several other well-known patents and patentees.
This tool is not a retrieval tool.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
That's a great idea, 4.c. Bury them with emails.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Unless there's another way we're missing.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
UPDATE ON THE PANIC!
@Username already in use alerted me to it working in Chrome. I was using Edge.
I'm going to stop posting on this subject until things calm down and I do more methodical trial and error. I was able to use it on Edge successfully for "1549164" (Thewes patent) where that did not work just an hour ago. It retrieved three patents: two that cited Thewes and the Thewes. And you can read the text or use a button up top to switch to drawing.
But when I tried it on "301681" (Coes) in Chrome and Edge it will not retrieve the Coes patent. Earliest patent it retrieves is 1925.
So at this point I'm not sure what's going on but rather than clog up my own thread with interim traffic, I'm just going to wait and see on this.
@Username already in use alerted me to it working in Chrome. I was using Edge.
I'm going to stop posting on this subject until things calm down and I do more methodical trial and error. I was able to use it on Edge successfully for "1549164" (Thewes patent) where that did not work just an hour ago. It retrieved three patents: two that cited Thewes and the Thewes. And you can read the text or use a button up top to switch to drawing.
But when I tried it on "301681" (Coes) in Chrome and Edge it will not retrieve the Coes patent. Earliest patent it retrieves is 1925.
So at this point I'm not sure what's going on but rather than clog up my own thread with interim traffic, I'm just going to wait and see on this.
Last edited:
Username already in use
Well-known member
The new site is trash with most browsers. I was trying to use Safari.
Probably works better on a desktop than a mobile phone.
Chrome is working.
Search the patent number, scroll to find the correct 'document ID' click the little camera icon in the document viewer to see the patent application.
Typical Government making it harder to do the same job.
Probably works better on a desktop than a mobile phone.
Chrome is working.
Search the patent number, scroll to find the correct 'document ID' click the little camera icon in the document viewer to see the patent application.
Typical Government making it harder to do the same job.
four.cycle
Well-known member
I am using Google Chrome on a desktop.
Obviously I didn't enter the information correctly. I tried patent 1902878 and the search results were for something completely unrelated. I'll give it another shot. 08:11 PDT
Obviously I didn't enter the information correctly. I tried patent 1902878 and the search results were for something completely unrelated. I'll give it another shot. 08:11 PDT
Username already in use
Well-known member
@four.cycle yeah, the search results will return every patent that even references the one you searched. You have to scroll to the bottom of the list to find the right/original patent application.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
You mean the METHOD OF MAKING A 3D PRINTED DENTAL ALIGNER OR MOUTHGUARD?
It works. But it's at the bottom of the list. This is completely counterintuitive, but you have to scroll down, bottom left.
EDIT: X-posted
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
UNAIU - Try 301,681. Should be Coes, July 8, 1884. See what you get. I get 42 records, oldest being 1921. For a TOY HORSE. And the reason it's showing up is because 301,681 was the serial number for the patent application. Not the patent number. (That will be a PITA!)
Methinks the reason I was getting mixed results is because they're not all there, or, 1884 is too old.
I have not tried it yet, but I wonder if you can get the list in descending order.
Methinks the reason I was getting mixed results is because they're not all there, or, 1884 is too old.
I have not tried it yet, but I wonder if you can get the list in descending order.
four.cycle
Well-known member
okay... you CAN find the *.pdf file if you've got a patent number. I missed the "scroll to document" part that UNAIU mentioned above.
It works. It requires a couple more steps (or at least it appears that way) for me to get TO the *.pdf file to download it.
another example of the "techie" guys making "improvements" that require users to go through a learning curve process all over again.
I will still stand by my previous statement above (in the email.) There is no rational, logical reason to make websites more difficult for users to navigate. Just because you can doesn't always necessarily mean you should - and this is a great example of that.
I'm sure they'll argue that they've added all sorts of features and benefits, and I'll put money on none of them serving the needs or purposes of vintage tool collectors.
BK
It works. It requires a couple more steps (or at least it appears that way) for me to get TO the *.pdf file to download it.
another example of the "techie" guys making "improvements" that require users to go through a learning curve process all over again.
I will still stand by my previous statement above (in the email.) There is no rational, logical reason to make websites more difficult for users to navigate. Just because you can doesn't always necessarily mean you should - and this is a great example of that.
I'm sure they'll argue that they've added all sorts of features and benefits, and I'll put money on none of them serving the needs or purposes of vintage tool collectors.
BK
Attachments
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Not so fast giving them a total pass just yet!
I have tried to find several patents, all older than 1900, and they are not showing up.
I have tried to find several patents, all older than 1900, and they are not showing up.
four.cycle
Well-known member
I just sent another email. not quite as nice as the first one. BK
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
I apparently tried it enough that I got flagged for a survey. That was fun filling out.
Username already in use
Well-known member
I think you may be right about patents older than 1900. I'm unable to locate any as well.
Stoopid.
Stoopid.
four.cycle
Well-known member
I tried both patents 6002 (Solyman Merrick) and 23751 (Briggs).
On the 6002, I got a drop-down menu at lower left with no less than 22,868 line items to pick through.
The number wasn't quite as big on the 23751.
However, I never needed to know what the "family" was up until this change. I see no logical, rational, or valid reason for my having to invest the time and energy to learn all those "families", especially in light of the fact that even the experts don't know them all. (pers. comm., Stan Schulz) More importantly, it was never a requirement prior to this change that I know the "family". Why is that a requirement now? (Other than to make my task of finding the information more difficult?)
I have already sent three over-the-top, nasty and obnoxious emails to USPTO. I will follow up with communications to U.S. Congressman's office and my two U.S. Senators. (They always love hearing from me.)
I encourage those to whom this poses difficulties to let USPTO know of your concerns.
BK
On the 6002, I got a drop-down menu at lower left with no less than 22,868 line items to pick through.
The number wasn't quite as big on the 23751.
However, I never needed to know what the "family" was up until this change. I see no logical, rational, or valid reason for my having to invest the time and energy to learn all those "families", especially in light of the fact that even the experts don't know them all. (pers. comm., Stan Schulz) More importantly, it was never a requirement prior to this change that I know the "family". Why is that a requirement now? (Other than to make my task of finding the information more difficult?)
I have already sent three over-the-top, nasty and obnoxious emails to USPTO. I will follow up with communications to U.S. Congressman's office and my two U.S. Senators. (They always love hearing from me.)
I encourage those to whom this poses difficulties to let USPTO know of your concerns.
BK
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Just so you understand the scope of the issue, there's no telling how many of those 22,686 records it returned, 500 per page, were relevant. The search tool will return ALL instances of the number "6002" it finds, whether that refers to the patent number 6,002, issued to Solyman Merrick on Jan 2, 1849 for a screw wrench, or not. If "6002" is any other number or simply PART OF any other number (Zip Code 76002, Serial Number 8946002654, etc), it will list the patent record containing that number. And because it doesn't seem to be finding any pre-1900 patents, probably all of those were irrelevant.
Not that it's ideal, but I can cope with scrolling down a list of ten (10) or less irrelevant or relevant (other citations) records to find the patent I was looking to retrieve at the bottom.
Hundreds will clearly be an issue.
And not including patents before 1900 is a show stopper.
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
One thing to their credit, they sure are responsive to us curmudgeons!
Hello,
The new Patent Public Search tool automatically defaults to searching all three databases that are part of the entire system but you can select any number of the databases you want to limit your search to or search all three.
Here are the three database that can be searched in.
US-PGPUB – Includes Published Applications
USPAT – Includes issued patent from 1970 to date
USOCR – Includes issued patent prior to 1970. However, these patents are not searchable by all fields.
The easiest way is to link over to the Patent Public Search tool and enter the patent number in this format: 1000000.pn. and hit the search button. This will bring up the patent number as in the old system.
Here’s a bit more information:
Also, we are offering two monthly classes on the new tool. One is a Basic class and the other is for more advanced searching. The information will be available on the PTO website in the Public Events area. Events | USPTO or
the Public Search Facility | USPTO
Here are the links for October:
www.eventbrite.com
www.eventbrite.com
Hello,
The new Patent Public Search tool automatically defaults to searching all three databases that are part of the entire system but you can select any number of the databases you want to limit your search to or search all three.
Here are the three database that can be searched in.
US-PGPUB – Includes Published Applications
USPAT – Includes issued patent from 1970 to date
USOCR – Includes issued patent prior to 1970. However, these patents are not searchable by all fields.
The easiest way is to link over to the Patent Public Search tool and enter the patent number in this format: 1000000.pn. and hit the search button. This will bring up the patent number as in the old system.
Here’s a bit more information:
Also, we are offering two monthly classes on the new tool. One is a Basic class and the other is for more advanced searching. The information will be available on the PTO website in the Public Events area. Events | USPTO or
the Public Search Facility | USPTO
Here are the links for October:
Getting Started with Patent Public Search: An Overview
Getting Started with Patent Public Search: An Overview
www.eventbrite.com
Patent Public Search: Advanced Tips for Frequent Searchers
Patent Public Search: Advanced Tips for Frequent Searchers
www.eventbrite.com
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
So...
- The USOCR checkbox option (for searching only the database for old OCR scanned patents) does help cut down the chaff tremendously.
- Also, if you don't want to type the patent number and then ".pn" in the search field you can just type the patent number and use only the [PN] button instead of the [Search] button and it will perform the same search, by patent number only.
But...
- It will not return older patents. Searches on 6,002 (Merrick/1849), 23,751 (Briggs/1859), and 301,681 (Coes/1884) are 0 Results.
So...
I conducted a test to try to isolate the cutoff. I went to the 'Self-Adjustable Wrenches' section of DATAMP and just started using the new USPTO search tool until I could whittle it down to success and failure as tight as I could get it.
1,029,074, granted to W.A. Little on June 11, 1912 is IN the database. All all patents later.
996,841, granted to J.J. Dixon on July 4, 1911 is NOT in the database. And no patents earlier.
So....
I tried too narrow it down even more. Until I realized what patent number was going to come up in August of 1911.
Anyone want to take a guess?!!!
- The USOCR checkbox option (for searching only the database for old OCR scanned patents) does help cut down the chaff tremendously.
- Also, if you don't want to type the patent number and then ".pn" in the search field you can just type the patent number and use only the [PN] button instead of the [Search] button and it will perform the same search, by patent number only.
But...
- It will not return older patents. Searches on 6,002 (Merrick/1849), 23,751 (Briggs/1859), and 301,681 (Coes/1884) are 0 Results.
So...
I conducted a test to try to isolate the cutoff. I went to the 'Self-Adjustable Wrenches' section of DATAMP and just started using the new USPTO search tool until I could whittle it down to success and failure as tight as I could get it.
1,029,074, granted to W.A. Little on June 11, 1912 is IN the database. All all patents later.
996,841, granted to J.J. Dixon on July 4, 1911 is NOT in the database. And no patents earlier.
So....
I tried too narrow it down even more. Until I realized what patent number was going to come up in August of 1911.
Anyone want to take a guess?!!!
Old Radar
Well-known member
Patent # 1,000,000, whatever that may be.
gearhead1960
ALLIANCE MEMBER
John Browning's Model of 1911?
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
Give that man a CEE-gar!
1,000,000, granted to F.H. Holton on Aug 8, 1911 for a tire, worked.
999,999, granted to D.H. Hoffman on Aug 8, 1911 for RR switch, did NOT work.
Which made me figure out what was wrong. When they say the format is 1000000, they mean it. Literally!
You have to fill out missing digits with 0's or it will return nulls.
"6002" will not work. But "0006002" will.
"23751" will not work. But "0023751" will.
"301681" will not work. But "0301681" will.
All the patents are there and retrievable. It just seemed as if they omitted pre-1900 patents because we were all plugging in patent numbers less than 1,000,000 without fronting them with 0's.
Last edited:
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
So that I could metaphorically use it? Not a bad idea!
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
From 6:30 PM last night to 5 PM today means it took this dumb *** almost 24 hours and much gnashing of teeth and with some help from UNAIU and the USPTO Help Center to figure this new search tool out.
Old Radar
Well-known member
But your single-minded effort saved the brain cells of countless other GJ members. Thanks for taking the bullet!!
OP
Private Lugnutz
Well-known member
HAHA! I can always count on you to keep a metaphor going! 