Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Patentstudent

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
Let's assume that we have invented an improved hammer.
The hammer includes ten novel and non-obvious features that are all aimed at improving the usability of the hammer.
The features include for example (hypo):
- the hammer is double headed and one head is made of steel (to hammer on nails) and the other from rubber to hammer on something without damaging it
- the handle of the hammer comprises a special recess for one's thumb, which makes holding and using the hammer easier
- etc.
If indeed all the features improve the usability of the hammer, what should we pay special attention to (or what are the do's and dont's) in order to prevent a rejection due to lack of unity of invention when including and claiming all ten features in one application?

Thank you again for your valued views. 

Is it Patentable? / Is this method in principle patentable ?
« on: 04-09-18 at 05:20 am »
I have the following hypothetical invention:

Let's presume that we discovered that growing certain vegetables on free deck space of ships or other man-made floating structures has a benefit in terms of the growing speed. Would this surface (i.e. ship decks) in principle be patentable as part of a method for growing such vegetables?

Thank you for your answers.   

I have a basic question with respect to PCT applications.
Let's presume that I filed a national patent application in Canada for a new widget.
If I file a PCT application before the end of the priority year claiming priority based on my Canadian patent application, can I add new subject matter relating to the widget for features that I invented after filing the Canadian patent application?
In case of the affirmative, I assume that the added subject matter and the pertaining claims will obtain a different priority date (i.e. the date of filing of the PCT application), in contrast to the rest of the widget which will have the filing date of the Canadian patent application as priority date.
Is this assumption correct?   
Thank you for your

Let's assume that we have developed an improved chair.
However, the improvements are not likely to be considered non-obvious.
Is there a general 'trick' or 'recipe' to prevent a rejection based on lack of non-obviousness? 

Of course, we donít want to add non-obvious features that are not required for the intended use of the chair and hence donít have any added value in terms of real protection of our improved chair concept.

Thank you in advance. 

Let's presume a patent application for a novel and inventive device has a number of device claims, for example:

1. A device comprising elements A and B.
2. The device of claim 1 comprising an element C.

Can these device claims now be followed by a method claim in the following form:

3. A method for the manufacturing of the device according to the preceding claims.

My specific question is, whether this method claim that does not disclose any features of the method will be accepted due to the mere fact that the claimed features of the device are novel and non-obvious? 

Thank you.

Patent Infringement / PCT application - modified claims
« on: 11-04-17 at 08:36 am »
I am looking at a published PCT application. The official examination of the application revealed that the applicant must modify most of his claims if he wants to rescvue them, at least partially.
Can anybody advise where I should look to see if the applicant has filed a modified claim set, and in case of the affirmative, where I can read these modified claims?
Thank you.

Is it Patentable? / Novel database based method
« on: 09-28-17 at 08:12 am »
If someone invented a new method of creating traceability for surgical implants by creating a database with more ample ways of linking an implant to a patient and/or to a hospital/clinic and/or to a surgeon, could that method in principle be patentable?
What concrete criteria should be fulfilled for it to be patentable?
Would that also apply in the EPO jurisdictions?
Thank you very much for your thoughts. 

Let's presume an inventor invented a new instrument for dentists.
He discovers that instead of manufacturing all the parts for the new instrument, he can buy one specific brand and type of ballpoint pen, remove the ink cartridge of the pen and replace that by a specifically manufactured dentistry tool part.
Is the inventor allowed to sell the dentist tool that is obtained in this way as his product?     
Thank you.

Are there any unwritten rules to take into account for drafting a patent application for a food recipe in order to increase the chance of preventing rejection based on obviousness?
It seems unfair to me that a new food recipe is difficult to patent, while a new paperclip (in a manner of speaking) isn't.
One of my friends has come up with a new recipe for a food product that traditionally has been made from meat for almost a century now.
He is the first one who replaced meat by fish. All food processing technologists experts who he consulted (under an NDA) were astonished by the route chosen by him and by the result, both in taste and texture of the food product.

His patent attorney told him that the chance for him to pass the non-obviousness test is very small.
For almost a century now, apparently nobody (including the food technologists of R&D department of food giants) came up with the idea to replace meat by fish, in making this product. Therefore, you would think that my friend's concept is not obvious.

I would be very thankful for any thoughts on drafting a patent application for my friend's food recipe that has a better chance of passing the non-obviousness examination.

Thank you.

Let's presume that someone invented a novel 'feature' (comprising an LED and a small printed circuit board) for flaslights that can be incorporated in any type of flaslight during manufacturing of the flashlight.
What is the best way to go about claiming it?
Is it better to claim the 'feature' on its own or to claim a flashlight comprising the 'feature'?

Thank you.

Can anyone please give me an idea for the following hypothetical case?

We have invented a method of manufacturing a widget. In order to implement that method we invented a 'curved hammer' and a 'folded screwdriver'.
Can we claim:

1. A method for the manufacturing of a widget, that method comprising ..........etc.
2. A device for the application of the method of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a curved hammer and a folded screwdriver.

I.e. can a device claim basically claim two devices?

Thank you.

I'd appreciate any suggestion for the main (independent) claim for the following invention:

A device that is placed between a first end of a towing cable and a first car that is towed by a second car to which the second end of the towing cable is attached, wherein the device disconnects the towing cable from the first car when a third car or any other object pushes the towing cable sideways.

Of course, the actual invention is something different, but I expect that a claim for this hypo will provide an instructive example.   

Thank you.

Patent Filing and Prosecution / What to do?
« on: 10-30-16 at 06:59 am »
About 10 months ago we filed an patent application claiming a device that performs function X.
At the time we thought that this device represented the only practical way of doing X.
However, recently, the existence of another possible embodiment for doing X emerged.
We now feel that in our application we should not just have claimed the device, but also the method according to which the device operates.
What is the best thing for us to do at this stage?
Thank you.   

We filed a national patent application approx. 11 months ago.
Now, we want to file a PCT application claiming the priority of that national application.
Can we include an extra  drawing and a short explanation of the drawing in the PCT application for another embodiment of the device that we claim?
The features of the new embodiment fall within the boundaries of the original claims. So, we won't alter the claims.
Thank you in advance for your reply.   

I have a question with respect to terminology.

What is the correct term to describe a side mirror of a car that can be adjusted by pressing a button inside the car as opposed to the old-fashioned manual adjustment?
The word 'automatic' was the first that came to my mind, but is it the best?

Thank you for your help.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.1 seconds with 19 queries.