|
FeedMeLaw
|
 |
« Reply #3480 on: 02-08-10 at 08:08 pm » |
|
Yeah...8 months was actually 6 months for most classes. Nonetheless, I think two months of training is all that is needed, followed by 2 months of non-production based examining. The trainers should also know the relevant sections of the MPEP extremely well. I cannot tell you how many SPE's/primaries have forgotten the basics.
Ditto. I especially love when examiners apply foreign references where only their "filing dates" predate the present application's filing date, thinking they've at least got a 102e rejection. Hellooo 2nd non-final.  ::FeedMeLaw.com " Where you go when you're hungry for law" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Where You Go When You're Hungry For Law" ::: http://www.feedmelaw.com ==> FeedMeLaw.com brings you the latest Patent Law Blog Rankings, Patent Attorney ratings, Patent Attorneys & Agents on Twitter, Hot Topics in IP, Life as a Patent Examiner, Latest from the USPTO and way more than I can list. |
|
|
|
Robert K S
|
|
« Reply #3481 on: 02-08-10 at 09:41 pm » |
|
I don't think I'm clued in regarding this shutdown. This was the only notice I could find (not even on USPTO.gov): http://www.data.gov/opm_status.htmlMight this mean that any Feb. 9 response deadlines are moved to a later date without needing to pay an extension petition fee? (The 10th? The 11th?) I can't find anything in 37 C.F.R. about snow days (or any other type of federal closures), but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only after final does the fun begin.
Everybody else's advice disclaimers are herein incorporated by reference.
|
|
|
|
Examinerguy
|
|
« Reply #3482 on: 02-08-10 at 09:55 pm » |
|
Ditto. I especially love when examiners apply foreign references where only their "filing dates" predate the present application's filing date, thinking they've at least got a 102e rejection.
Be careful. Most all WIPOs automatically designate the US now (and all the NATO countries?). Further, if a US examiner is using the reference as art (assuming it is filed after 11/29/2000), it is probably written in english. I remember back in the day I couldn't use most foreign filing dates b/c of the 11/29/2000 thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert K S
|
|
« Reply #3484 on: 02-09-10 at 02:15 am » |
|
Thanks. So I guess that means the Patent Office's snow day is the practitioner's snow day, too, even if the practitioner lives Waikiki.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only after final does the fun begin.
Everybody else's advice disclaimers are herein incorporated by reference.
|
|
|
|
DogDayPM
|
|
« Reply #3485 on: 02-09-10 at 09:12 am » |
|
For a more recent affirmation (from front page of USPTO.gov but you have to toggle through the "what news" screens to find it) see http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/uspto_closed_20100208.pdfIn view of the official closing of the Federal government offices in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), on Monday, February 8, 2010, the USPTO will consider Monday, February 8, 2010, to be a “Federal holiday within the District of Columbia” under 35 U.S.C. § 21(b) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 2.2(d), 2.195 and 2.196. Any action or fee due on Monday, February 8, 2010 (or the preceding Saturday (February 6, 2010) or Sunday (February 7, 2010)) will be considered as timely for the purposes of, e.g., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051(b), 1058, 1059, 1062(b), 1063, 1064, 1126(d), or 35 U.S.C. §§ 119, 120, 133 and 151, if the action is taken, or the fee paid, on the next succeeding business day on which the USPTO is open. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.7(a) and 2.196. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Any and all disclaimers you may see on this forum used by members more experienced and/or smarter than I, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
|
|
|
|
DogDayPM
|
|
« Reply #3486 on: 02-09-10 at 09:17 am » |
|
Be careful. Most all WIPOs automatically designate the US now (and all the NATO countries?). Further, if a US examiner is using the reference as art (assuming it is filed after 11/29/2000), it is probably written in english. I remember back in the day I couldn't use most foreign filing dates b/c of the 11/29/2000 thing.
My best one was a JP-only publication in an attempted 102(e), where the Examiner, a Primary, had done a machine translation to English on the day the Action issued. I called and asked her what was going on. She said she was desperate to kick it out the door and that's all she had, and she figured I'd know what to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Any and all disclaimers you may see on this forum used by members more experienced and/or smarter than I, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
|
|
|
|
dz
|
|
« Reply #3487 on: 02-09-10 at 11:08 am » |
|
My best one was a JP-only publication in an attempted 102(e), where the Examiner, a Primary, had done a machine translation to English on the day the Action issued. I called and asked her what was going on. She said she was desperate to kick it out the door and that's all she had, and she figured I'd know what to do with it.
Just curious, how did the Examiner use a machine translation in an Office Action? I have seen some Japanese-to-English machine translation, but couldn't make much sense out of such translation. Maybe PTO has a very intelligent machine translation product? On a practical note, if PTO wants to be serious about using a foreign language only reference, will it actually use a breathing person to translate? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Examinerguy
|
|
« Reply #3488 on: 02-09-10 at 11:15 am » |
|
They have translators at the office. You send out the application and it comes back 2 weeks later completely translated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
klaviernista
|
|
« Reply #3489 on: 02-09-10 at 12:39 pm » |
|
They have translators at the office. You send out the application and it comes back 2 weeks later completely translated.
Yep. The on site translators are pretty impressive too. When I was at the PTO, there was a guy in the translations branch who could fluently speak, read and write 6 completely different languages (English, Chinese, Japanese, German, and Polish). I can barely speak one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nothing I post on this forum is legal advice. If you rely on anything I post, you do so at your own risk. Similarly, the mere presence of my reply to a thread or post does not form an attorney client relationship between myself and the poster of an original or subsequent message.
|
|
|
|
DogDayPM
|
|
« Reply #3490 on: 02-09-10 at 02:09 pm » |
|
Just curious, how did the Examiner use a machine translation in an Office Action? I have seen some Japanese-to-English machine translation, but couldn't make much sense out of such translation. Maybe PTO has a very intelligent machine translation product? On a practical note, if PTO wants to be serious about using a foreign language only reference, will it actually use a breathing person to translate?
The answer is, the Examiner didn't (legally) use a machine trans. The reference is not available under 102(e). Physically speaking, she just had the JIPO website translate it for her. It's pretty good in terms of getting a decent sense of what's taught and most pubs later than about 2002 (guessing) are available for text translations. Earlier than that, it's pretty spotty whether the full text is available for machine trans. I use it a lot when US, KR and CN examiners are citing the English-language abstract of a JP pub against me for purported novelty purposes, when to me it looks like they're just taking a stab in the dark at trying to equate something shown in the abstract or figures to my elements. Sometimes I get lucky and the machine trans pretty clearly shows that the alleged equivalency is way off target (always carefully explaining the provenance of the translation). I see the rest of your questions are already answered, which is good since I didn't know the answers! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 02-09-10 at 02:23 pm by DogDayPM »
|
Logged
|
Any and all disclaimers you may see on this forum used by members more experienced and/or smarter than I, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert K S
|
|
« Reply #3492 on: 02-10-10 at 12:03 am » |
|
Shutdown extended to Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only after final does the fun begin.
Everybody else's advice disclaimers are herein incorporated by reference.
|
|
|
|
JustAnotherExaminer
|
|
« Reply #3493 on: 02-10-10 at 08:06 am » |
|
My best one was a JP-only publication in an attempted 102(e), where the Examiner, a Primary, had done a machine translation to English on the day the Action issued. I called and asked her what was going on. She said she was desperate to kick it out the door and that's all she had, and she figured I'd know what to do with it.
Just curious, how did the Examiner use a machine translation in an Office Action? I have seen some Japanese-to-English machine translation, but couldn't make much sense out of such translation. Maybe PTO has a very intelligent machine translation product? On a practical note, if PTO wants to be serious about using a foreign language only reference, will it actually use a breathing person to translate? There's a memo floating around that says machine based translations are sufficient for applying a foreign reference now. Read enough Japanese translations and you'll be able to understand them no problem. Some terms translate kinda funny but you can figure them out for the most part. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
somedude
|
|
« Reply #3494 on: 02-10-10 at 08:56 am » |
|
Any bets on whether we'll be closed through Friday?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
