The Patent System is not intended to be a test of exclusive original thought.

The function of the Patent System is to incentivize search for solutions by temporarily securing exclusive right to market novel devices and processes for the discoverer.

Of non-obvious inventions. My argument being all inventions are obvious once attention is applied to that area and scope.

Requiring attention IMO takes something out of the realm of “obvious”. And the standard is “novel”.

Everything in the future is novel, so that's a moot qualifier.

Everything requires attention to be seen, once somethign becomes "obvious" is fully determined where you're looking and the scope you're zoomed in on.

E.g. "matter is solid" until you zoom in and realize matter is mostly made up of space.

Moot in your opinion. The idea is to bring the future more expediently by providing temporary incentive to pioneers reaching into the future.

You just proved my point with your second sentence - that everything in the future will come.

And bringing things more expediently is the actual opinion here, unsupported, where arguably it actually slows down not only progress but the value of that progress not being as widely distributed as it otherwise would be.

You continue to miss my point. Your point is a lazy, "the future will get here whenever it does" perspective. Mine is incentivizing discovery brings future innovations sooner.

You don't provide any supportive evidence that "your way of incentivizing" creates a net benefit - "just trust me bro" seems to be your fallback.

Unfortunately USPTO takes "non-obvious" to mean that it wasn't already suggested by combining patents or other written work, so if you are the first to work a problem you can claim easy solutions that anyone with a clue would have quickly reached. Land rushes to fence off new fields seem inevitable.