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 7 ... 10
 11 
 on: 07-20-18 at 01:33 pm 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by MYK
Slight hijack, will there be any effect on the APJ jobs from last month's Supreme Court ruling in Lucia v. SEC?

 12 
 on: 07-20-18 at 01:23 pm 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by abc123
It used to be that people with electrical engineering backgrounds had a much greater chance of getting hired at the board than those with mechanical. I never paid attention to chemical or biotech, although I remember when biotech became hot in the early 2000's they did hire a large number of people in this area.

If you work at the PTO, doing favors, like working on special projects, at least used to be important, as I noticed people who had done this were more likely to get hired. I know people who had special connections who really should not have been hired, and when I see their name on a decision it makes me cringe a little. I also know (or, rather, knew) people who thought that by being good examiners, their work would be recognized and it would get them the job, only to later find out that doing good searches did not get them very far in at least this respect.


 13 
 on: 07-20-18 at 01:21 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by JV
Do you know why they require the PoA? There doesn't seem to be any justification for it considering that I can just scan and file the 85B like I do any other submission without the PoA.
I'm fairly certain that - as with so many of the USPTO's requirements - there is no rational justification for it.

 14 
 on: 07-20-18 at 01:15 pm 
Started by PeterPatnter - Last post by THEROUEN
For those looking to quote the MPEP, a call with the USPTO confirmed this is as close as we can get:  MPEP 714.10 (updated Jan 2018), in part:

"...When applicant adds a new excess claim that is in excess of the number of claims that were previously paid for after taking into account claims that have been canceled*, applicant must pay the required excess claims fees before the examiner considers the new claim.."

*Per USPTO AAU agent, by indicating CANCELLED claims only, we can safely draw the conclusion that withdrawn claims count toward total claims.

 15 
 on: 07-20-18 at 12:26 pm 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by DC Atty
Thanks for the reply.  I'm a little surprised because the notification said that my application "will be thoroughly reviewed by a Panel, to determine if [I am] among the best qualified to be referred to the selecting official for further consideration" and that the USAJobs status would be updated after this review.  I suppose they could just be keeping some applications on the back burner in case their preferred candidates don't work out.

Would you mind sharing some info about your friend that got the interview? Nothing personal of course, but is she an Examiner or an Attorney, years of exp. etc.  I'm just curious as to what qualifications they are looking for, other than clerkship experience (and working at a certain biglaw IP firm that 50% of the judges appear to have worked at).



 16 
 on: 07-20-18 at 11:54 am 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by fewyearsin
When I applied they did interviews around 2 months after the application period ended but then it was something like 4-5 months after that before I was notified that I wasn't selected, so it could be a while. This was a long time ago so my experience may or may not be relevant.

My friend did say that she was told she should hear back within 2 weeks about the final interview, but she also said the interviewers told her that hiring could take 2-12 months, which they realized was a huge range, but they said it was out of their control.

 17 
 on: 07-20-18 at 11:27 am 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by lazyexaminer
When I applied they did interviews around 2 months after the application period ended but then it was something like 4-5 months after that before I was notified that I wasn't selected, so it could be a while. This was a long time ago so my experience may or may not be relevant.

 18 
 on: 07-20-18 at 10:49 am 
Started by fortiz303 - Last post by EvilLost
Hello all!

I have a product that (I thought) was new to the market. It's been less than a year since I disclosed it to the public, and the product has sold EXTREMELY well with no competitors- BUT the problem is that the one year window to file the patent will close soon (another 3 more months) and I want to make the move now before it's too late.

The invention was discovered in the 70's although the inventor never placed the product on the market. What I am seeking now is somebody who is going to law school, somebody who is familiar with the patenting process or a patenting lawyer who would be open to an equity split of the product.

I would love to discuss this with you further if it is of any interest to you and mods, if this is not placed in the right place, please let me know.

Best!

1) The POST-AIA 1-year grace period is quite different (and much more limited) than the pre-AIA grace period. I strongly advise all clients against relying on this.
2) The 1-year grace period in the US is only for the US. You have probably already precluded yourself from getting EU patent protection (assuming this is patentable at all).

For example, in the EU you have only a 6 month grace period and only if it is the result of abuse or display at a recognized trade fair (see EPC Art 55 http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar55.html).

I'd appreciate if someone with more EU experience could confirm my understanding here: specifically, what if the US application is allowable (under the US grace period), and a subsequent EU application seeks PPH? I assume the EU application is PPH eligible, but would still be rejected because the public presentation, although not prior art under US law, would be prior art under EU law.

3) Others have already commented on patentability issues based on a 1970s discovery (and whether you are even an inventor). This is fact specific, but unless you have provided some kind of improvement....otherwise the public knowledge from the 1970s will be prior art against your patent application.

 19 
 on: 07-20-18 at 10:39 am 
Started by fewyearsin - Last post by fewyearsin
Thanks for the update.  I'm aware through a friend that they did some interviews last month, but she was hoping to hear about a final callback by early this month and hasn't heard anything.  So I'm guessing I'm out this round, and my friend is thinking her chances are going down each passing day :(  Oh well, there's always next time.

Of course, the PTAB is running out of ex parte cases (per the PTO's own public data), and the AIA trials aren't out of danger just yet.  I'd hate to get the job and then get fired a year or two later if more patent reform passes gutting the PTAB.  So maybe there's my silver lining.  Or my sour grapes ;)

 20 
 on: 07-20-18 at 10:37 am 
Started by ralphael - Last post by EvilLost
I think I am sure on this but just to be clear, the invention does not have to improve upon prior art, just achieving the same result differently should be sufficient, yes?
Yes.

I have to add a clarification here:

Two different method claims may be patentably distinct even if they provide the same results (i.e. the "structure" of the methods is different).

Two (otherwise identical) apparatuses (apparati?) resulting from two different processes are NOT patentably distinct (i.e. the structure of the two apparatuses is identical). Your most recent comment states that it is "lighter, smaller, and cheaper" than the other apparatus. If it is lighter and/or smaller, then it implies the structure is also different in some way. If this difference is non-obvious, then it may be patentably distinct.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 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 0.15 seconds with 18 queries.