How does nonsense like this even pass basic validation at the patent office?

If the USPTO grants 12,345 new patents for toilet paper in various &quot;innovative&quot; roll width, and sheet shapes, and ply counts - that&#x27;s a massive boost for their metrics - <i>especially</i> their patent filing fee revenue.<p>(And these days - it might get their higher-up decision makers invited to some extremely nice parties, aboard the yachts of leading patent lawyers.)<p>Vs. where in their chain of command would anyone give a crap about the economic damage?

The description seems to match the spheres in this video.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=maqwEI3VpTA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=maqwEI3VpTA</a><p>Sabine is skeptical.

What validation are you looking for and what step do you think it fails?<p>I think it is a <i>bad</i> design,but I don&#x27;t see why it isn&#x27;t a novel one

the USPTO doesn&#x27;t evaluate the utility of patents. that&#x27;s what the courts are for.

&gt; How does nonsense like this even pass basic validation at the patent office?<p>Your link references a &quot;publication&quot; of an &quot;application&quot;, not an actual patent.<p>Applications are &quot;published&quot; (usually at 18 months from filing) with no review, and the publication itself carries no rights for exclusion. The publication just serves to indicate what someone has applied for. All it takes to get anything published is to be willing to pay the fee to file the application, and to actually file it.

Dave Jones (EEVblog) has been debunking these too.