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 8 ... 10
 21 
 on: Yesterday at 10:47 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by snapshot
7-12 years to get to primary! I think the average person who start at GS-7 can be a GS-14 primary in 6 years.

Yep, 7-12 years (or longer) happens.  Some people decide to delay it for personal reasons (family issues, don't feel like they're ready, don't want to start then have to stop).  Others think they're ready and then find out the hard way that they're not.

I started as a GS-7 and did it in about the minimum possible time, which was just shy of 5 and a half years.


 22 
 on: Yesterday at 09:40 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by PatentExaminer18
7-12 years to get to primary! I think the average person who start at GS-7 can be a GS-14 primary in 6 years.

 23 
 on: Yesterday at 09:26 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by rodya
Most make primary eventually. Hard to say exactly when. In my personal experience: some as quick as 4 years (rare), more as quick as 5-6 (still rare), most between 7 and 12,  rarely more than 12 years.

The office wants 100% primaries. Every junior requires a primary or soe to check thier work. Every hour I spend reviewing Jrs work is one less production hour.

If the office could haalve it their way we'd all be primaries working from home.

 24 
 on: Yesterday at 08:16 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by PatentExaminer18
In general, do most people make to the primary level? or there is a specific number/range as to how many primaries to have

 25 
 on: Yesterday at 06:26 am 
Started by memekit - Last post by memekit
Thank-you
Vanda=genotype, then dose (patent-able)
Mayo=dose, test levels, adjust (not patent-able, laws of nature)
Example=administer, prove Y is preserved

It sounds kind of like the example is another law of nature, because what's the point of proving Y is preserved, it's just an observation...???

 26 
 on: Yesterday at 05:42 am 
Started by Jim (WA) - Last post by bartmans
It seems to me that your invention can be considered to be a so-called selection invention, in which the broad concept is known (say the generic use of a metal), but that specific species (say iron and copper) have not been mentioned in the prior art.
It would only be possible to patent these species if they would have a technical effect that is not known in the prior art. Imgaine for instance that a process for producing widgets using a metal is known. Than an application on that same process with Fe would be considered to be novel but not inventive. It only becomes inventive when the use of iron introduces a new and non-Obvious technical feature into the process or the final product, i.e. when it appears that with iron the process runs faster, or that the widgets become more tear-resistant. If that is the case, a claim to such a process with iron may be found allowable.
Although my example is with chemical compounds, it can be used with any feature, i.e. also with size ranges, temperature ranges, and so on.

 27 
 on: Yesterday at 05:33 am 
Started by stickyagent1 - Last post by bartmans
Although I appreciate the effort that people take to write and file a (provisional) patent application themselves, you should realize that it is not only the drafting of the claims for which you would need a qualified patent attorney/patent agent. In your case it seems to be more important to make certain that your provisional application can serve as a source for a valid claim to priority. This is especially important because you mentioned to go public with your invention after filing the provisional. The danger of that is that - if it would appear that na valid claim to priority can be made - this publication of your invention can destroy the novelty of your later application in many countries in the world, including the UK.

Secondly, I agree with memkit that the patent office can do a better search job than many inventors. For that reason, I would advice to file the provisional with the UK patent office, add some claims that you would think describe the invention in the broadest sense and then let them do a search. This is still relatively cheap and you will definitively have the search results within the first year, i.e. before you have to file the definitive (non-provisional) application.

 28 
 on: Yesterday at 05:20 am 
Started by memekit - Last post by bartmans
In light of the recent decision in Vanda vs West-Ward (Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, Nos. 2016-2707, 2016‑2708 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2018) such claims relating to a method of treatment would be patentable.

 29 
 on: Yesterday at 01:27 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by slip sliding away

Ive met quite a few 11-13s whove been working 10+ years, so not sure about pushed out.

I would say a GS-11 after 10 years is a rarity. I have seen people who fail the program who stay on as GS-13's, but most either quit on their own, eventually pass the program, or get pushed out, like what happened to a friend of mine. Maybe other people have had different experiences.

Not sure about the comment about searchers making 120k. I don't think they make that much, and last I heard, their job prospects were not terribly great.

 30 
 on: Yesterday at 12:41 am 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by steelie
the chances of career change after 5+ years are slim...

More like 2 or 3, if even.

Also, I am not sure how long it takes to get to 120 - 130k at the PTO. And a decent number of people don't make it through the program to become primaries, and they usually get pushed out eventually. I am not blaming the PTO, as up or out is often the case in many organizations. It is just sad to see people who once had their careers ahead of them end up working as searchers in the PTO library, or working in a boutique in crystal city.

Ive met quite a few 11-13s whove been working 10+ years, so not sure about pushed out.
I think it's like Mitt Romney's "self-deport" statement.

Eventually, the job is so mindless, reptitious, aggrevating that many examiners "self-deport".

I look at AUs I have been in, and 65-75% of the examiners have employee IDs after mine.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 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 0.103 seconds with 18 queries.