Your original comment that monocasa responded to read only:
> If the claims are non-novel or obvious, then the examiners, who are familiar with the state of the art in the field, will reject them.
Which displays a stunning level of naivety and lack of familiarity with our patent system. Patents are regularly granted for extremely trivial (edit: and obvious) mechanisms.
That's because triviality isn't an issue in patents, non-obviousness and inventiveness is what's key, so it doesn't matter that the thing accomplished is trivial.
That's something that is certainly frequently asserted here but I've never seen any proof besides someone linking to one or two patents they don't like.
> If the claims are non-novel or obvious, then the examiners, who are familiar with the state of the art in the field, will reject them.
Which displays a stunning level of naivety and lack of familiarity with our patent system. Patents are regularly granted for extremely trivial (edit: and obvious) mechanisms.