Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 04:52 pm 
Started by patentbro - Last post by smgsmc


But that I am confused about that last part because "Passed [month and year] - awaiting registration" is almost exactly what I currently have on my resume.  Why is that wrong?

It's not wrong per se.  It just doesn't position you in the best light.

(a) In some instances, your resume will first be screened by a software filter, searching for the magic words "Registered Patent Agent, USPTO Registration No. XX,XXX".  In which case, the filter will direct your resume to the trash bin.

(b) OK, assume there is no software filter and your resume is screened by a human reviewer.  In many instances, the reviewer will skim your resume for ~ 30 sec and sort it into one of three bins:  "yes" (worthy of further consideration), "no" (trash), and "maybe" (requires special handling).  Of course, you want your resume to be directed to the "yes" bin.  But, since you do not have a registration number, it will likely end up at best in the "maybe" bin, even if your credentials are otherwise a good match to the firm's needs.  If the "yes" bin is sufficiently populated, however, the "maybe" bin gets folded into the trash bin.  [Of course, you could luck out, and the reviewer thinks "I've never heard of anyone being rejected because of a negative comment", so it's a "yes".]

(c) So you wait, haven't had a nibble, and you eventually get your registration number.  You update your resume and send it out again to the same firms (as well as others).  If it hits a previous reviewer, perhaps he's forgotten about your first resume, and gives your second resume a fresh look.  But perhaps there's a subconscious memory and a hidden bias that he passed you over the first time for some reason.


 2 
 on: Today at 02:47 pm 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi mersenne,

Here is a misunderstanding with "one or more" replaced with "at least one" in my application:

Here is the partial original claim:

...one or more copies of the paired critical path component together having the input data acceptable on every clock cycle.

It means that all copies together have the input data acceptable on every clock cycle.

partial new claim:
...at least one copy of the paired critical path component together having the input data acceptable on every clock cycle.

It means that at least one copy has the input data acceptable on every clock cycle, not all together!

Thank you.

Weng



 3 
 on: Today at 01:39 pm 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi mersenne,

Your teaching is excellent and I will print it as an attachment to my book: "Invention Analysis and Claiming".

"At least" is much better than "one or more" and I will change my 2 pending filings absolutely.

The text "one or more" is copied from somewhere.

Quote
The reason for my preference is that some examiners are touchy about the word or, even when it's completely unambiguous.  And arguments over things like that distract from the central goal of claiming your invention clearly, making sure the Examiner understands what to search for, and that s/he does a good search for it.

If your invention improves a single pipeline, then you might consider claiming just one pipeline in the independent claim.  Then, in a dependent claim, you can say something like:

The system of claim 1 comprising at least two pipelines, wherein each of the at least two pipelines is three instructions long.

or

The system of claim 1 comprising at least two pipelines, wherein each pipeline of the at least two pipelines is three instructions long.

This teaching is my another benefit and it is exactly what I meet in my second pending application!!!

How wonderful it is!!

Actually I, as an inventor and pro se, have many similar situations to deal with that are basic practices for senior lawyers.

Next time I dare to ask more questions!

And thanks to this website, many professional lawyers, even Examiners from USPTO like bluerogue, like and are willing to devote their precious times to help others while communicating with other lawyers.

Thank you.

Weng

 4 
 on: Today at 01:03 pm 
Started by Variusz - Last post by Lefty714
A provisional application is a stand-alone document. In other words, a provisional application cannot claim the benefit of or priority to any other application. You could certainly draft a provisional application including the material disclosed in the foreign filing. However, the provisional will only establish a priority date based on its particular filing date, no earlier. If the desire is to claim the benefit of the filing date of the foreign filing, a Non-Provisional or PCT application would have to be filed with a proper priority claim to the foreign filing.

 5 
 on: Today at 12:01 pm 
Started by patentseeker - Last post by patentseeker
Thank you both.  Bluerogue, that situation is what we are afraid of.  In this case, the inventor tragically committed suicide prior to a provisional application being filed.  Add to that this all happened after a divorce, and this complicates things further.  Unfortunately I think we will have to reach out to the estate and navigate through this process as carefully as we can.  Thank you for the input!

 6 
 on: Today at 11:45 am 
Started by Variusz - Last post by Variusz
For some reason, a person wants to start out in the United States with a provisional application based on a foreign filing.

I'm not a big fan of provisionals and have little experience with them. Apparently you can claim priority to a foreign filing in the Application Data Sheet, but something is wrong with this picture. Any experience with this? What I really want to tell the client is: Just file a regular US application within a year of the foreign application date, but I can't really point out any great deficiency with a provisional.

Thanks in advance for a good argument against a provisional at this stage!

 7 
 on: Today at 11:45 am 
Started by patentbro - Last post by patentbro
I don't anticipate any obstacles to registration.

I know you are not to hold yourself up as an agent until you are registered but I need a job ASAP and saying patent agent on my resume NOW would be a huge help.

Has anyone done this?

When applying for law firm positions, meticulousness is paramount.  You can't list yourself as a registered patent agent until you have a registration number.  Period.  If for some reason, you want to rush your resume out prior to registration, you should list something along the lines of:  "Passed patent bar exam; awaiting registration number".  But, personally, I wouldn't do that.  Follow the old adage:  "You have only one chance to make a good first impression."  The cleaner the resume, the better.  I would wait.

OK, thank you (and everyone else).  Point well taken, not worth the risk.

But that I am confused about that last part because "Passed [month and year] - awaiting registration" is almost exactly what I currently have on my resume.  Why is that wrong?

 8 
 on: Today at 11:20 am 
Started by patentseeker - Last post by bluerogue
This came up once while I was in house.  We had to deal with the estate.  It's one of the most awkward things to ask a widow to sign over papers in the midst of her grief and we went very slowly and carefully.  Document your efforts to obtain the estate's signature.  Failing that, you have good evidence to have proof of unavailable or refusal to sign and can go that route if necessary. 

 9 
 on: Today at 11:12 am 
Started by patentbro - Last post by midwestengineer
I don't anticipate any obstacles to registration.

I know you are not to hold yourself up as an agent until you are registered but I need a job ASAP and saying patent agent on my resume NOW would be a huge help.

Has anyone done this?

Don't do it.  As an example, I know of one case where a firm incorrectly listed an individual as an agent during the comment period.  This lead to a discipline proceeding, where the individual was cleared, and has been a constant headache for the individual as his career has progressed.  It has been brought up constantly throughout his career.

Full, accurate disclosure as Robert suggests is a better approach.

 10 
 on: Today at 10:57 am 
Started by Patentstudent - Last post by Patentstudent
still-learnin, thank you for your reply.
I understand your position but I am really confused about how to tackle this one.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

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

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 1.113 seconds with 18 queries.