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 9 10
 51 
 on: 01-14-17 at 04:53 am 
Started by babyrabbit - Last post by Jackoose
I'm worried about this at the moment,  as my phd is in organic chemistry while my work experience after was analytical chemistry.

I'm just worried it makes me look like I never stuck with one thing or I couldn't cut it in organic so I went to analytical.

you would think firms want someone with a broad knowledge base....but from what I'm gathering they would rather have a master of 1 trade rather than a jack of multiple trades

 52 
 on: 01-14-17 at 12:51 am 
Started by bleedingpen - Last post by mhgy
I don't have an opinion on rates per se, but the AIPLA publishes a yearly survey on rates, which I believe is broken down by geographic area and firm size. That would probably be a useful starting point.

 53 
 on: 01-14-17 at 12:02 am 
Started by Weng Tianxiang - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi friends and professional lawyers,

I have new problems now.

My first application luckily got allowed after my first response to the first Office action.

My next two pending applications, unfortunately, got the final rejections in 01/11/2017.

It is really not my inventions’ fault. (Maybe there are some phrases I need to change)

Because I changed every claims in the first responses to both first Office actions and the Examiner re-searched and that touched the Final Office Actions.

Here is the Final Office Action:
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP $706.07(a)

Here is the text of MPEP $706.07(a).
706.07(A)    FINAL REJECTION, WHEN PROPER ON SECOND ACTION [R-07.2015]
Second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).

Here are the key background and issues related to my applications and their rejections:

•   Wave-pipelining circuits have the same functions as their pipelining circuit counterparts, but without intermediate registers so that wave-pipelining circuits are superior over their counterparts in respect of speed, power consumption and silicon area except requiring much more complex logic design and much more capable synthesis tools.

•   Intel spent more than 10 years to shift their 1980’s 8087 coprocessor technology, a pipelining technology, to their next wave-pipelining technology in 1997. So designing a wave pipelining circuits are not an easy work.

•   I found I made one major mistake: in my opinion, HDL, hardware description language, includes only VHDL, Verilog and similar high level languages. But there is still a lower level language, called Register Transfer Level (RTL), is also counted as one of HDL. So the Examiner always clings to her point of view that a wave-pipelining circuit can be designed in RTL. Actually a wave-pipelining circuit can be only coded and generated using RTL currently, but with much more efforts and deep knowledge about the circuit and special synthesis tools.

•   Before my inventions every company goes its own way to code and to synthesize wave-pipelining circuits. I have invented a subset of VHDL or Verilog for designing wave-pipelining circuits in VHDL or Verilog so that if they are accepted as international standards every engineer in VHDL or Verilog can write wave-pipelining circuits without any knowledge about the circuits.

•   In my specification I never mention RTL and my HDL definition is following:
   HDL refers to all current hardware description languages VHDL, Verilog, SystemVerilog and so on.
•   So now I want to especially emphasize VHDL and Verilog and using “VHDL and Verilog” to replace “in HDL”. My reason is that I always use VHDL-2002 as my international standard model and RTL in grammar has nothing similar as VHDL. So my applications never touch any respects of RTL and have nothing to do with RTL.

•   All 3 new references cited by the Examiner have nothing to do with my applications.

•   If it is not a Final Office Action, I think that my amendments would make the allowance real possibility.

•   Now it is the Final Office Action, What can I do in the above situations?

23 claims include 15 rejections and 8 objections.

The Final Office Action says:
Claims 12-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form to overcome the objection set forth in the Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and ant intervening claims.

What should I do properly next after receiving the Final Office Action?

Thank you.

Weng

 54 
 on: 01-13-17 at 11:27 pm 
Started by artchain - Last post by artchain
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to post this, but it does pertain to copyright.

If you operate a website, hosting service, or other Internet business that allows the posting of 3rd-party content, you probably rely on the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

You may not be aware that you can lose these protections if you do not register an Agent with the US Copyright office.

Furthermore, the registration process has changed, and even if you previously registered, you must now submit a NEW registration prior to December 31, 2017.

You can read more, and register, here:

https://www.copyright.gov/dmca-directory/

Fortunately, the process is now all online...  no more paper forms.  The registration takes effect immediately (rather than waiting months to process), and costs just $6.

I hope this is useful!






 55 
 on: 01-11-17 at 05:48 pm 
Started by Luka - Last post by Luka
Thank you very much for your reply Smokin! Now I get it.
It's just that it stuck in my craw after I heard that courts and different mainstream platforms lean towards granting even unjustified complaints of big companies over small guys.
Thanks again.

 56 
 on: 01-11-17 at 05:46 pm 
Started by hokieExpress - Last post by smgsmc
Yea, thats really what I am finding. Kinda sucks and wish I had known this tidbit while an undergrad

Ah, but when you decided to major in aerospace engineering, did you intend on going into patent law, rather than working as an aerospace engineer?  I personally haven't met anyone who got a degree in science or engineering with the express intent of becoming a patent agent or patent attorney.  Usually they became disenchanted with their original career path for some reason and patent law was Plan B.

 57 
 on: 01-11-17 at 05:40 pm 
Started by Robert K S - Last post by lazyexaminer
I would not consider it a hassle if the allowance was already mailed. As discussed above, all you can do is file an RCE, so I will be doing more work on this case but I will be compensated for it. No big deal.

I would not consider it a hassle if I hadn't done anything yet. I might be annoyed that I thought I was done with the case with an allowance but now am not. This situation is unlikely, as most examiners are going to send an allowance ASAP once you agree.

I would consider it a hassle if I wrote up the allowance, it wasn't submitted yet, then you called to change your mind. I wasted my time writing the action, and I'm getting fewer counts now as I'm going to have to send a final instead. Like doop says, that is annoying. But again, not likely unless you reneg right away (which itself isn't likely in your scenario, since you are saying you are waiting for foreign approval anyway).

If the allowance was submitted but not mailed yet and you called to change your mind, it would be a hassle to track it down and stop the mailing process. I am not clear to what extent that is even possible, and that is extra work off the production clock to give myself fewer counts. I might just say I already submitted it and it's already out of my hands so I can't do anything, so file an RCE or CON when you get the allowance. I wouldn't feel bad about it since you were the one who reneged on the agreement. So ultimately, this scenario is a hassle if I'm super generous, but more likely not a hassle.

So overall, not that much of a hassle probably, could be annoying though...

 58 
 on: 01-11-17 at 04:50 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by ProSeGuy
Thanks Robert for the reply. My query was general in the sense that I'm looking for ways of convincing the examiner their rational to combine is in error, which I think can be appreciated by many. I have included some reasons that I am familiar with, others would be welcomed.

 59 
 on: 01-11-17 at 04:47 pm 
Started by projecttoday - Last post by projecttoday
That's what I've found.  It is possible that my simple program uses a technique that is patented.  So there is some chance.  But the holders of these patents would find more fertile ground for attack in the many other larger, profitable applications on the market than my startup. 

As for my original question, I was thinking that one thing I didn't want to do is something really obvious.  As an example, say I wanted to put an accounting program of my own on the market.  Is there a patent on accounting programs held by QuickBooks or Peachtree or somebody and I would have to make a contract with them if I wanted to market my own, something which they probably wouldn't do.  Yes, these programs have been around for more than 20 years but I don't know for a fact they didn't get around to getting a patent in, say, 1999.  I just wanted to know if applications are patented.  It looks like they are not. 

 60 
 on: 01-11-17 at 04:35 pm 
Started by Robert K S - Last post by doop
The hassle is likely (though I am not 100% certain) that the examiner performs the work to issue the allowance (including writing the examiner's amendments, interference searches, proper classifications, etc.) and gets the appropriate counts, but then if the allowance is later retracted, the counts that the examiner got for issuing the allowance would be taken away, and he or she would then have to write and issue a final action.  If it is possible that the examiner loses the counts on the work that he or she actually performed, and then has to issue a final office action, then that examiner will be pissed.  You may lose any future benefit of doubt by the examiner, including the indication of allowance because the examiner may find that upon further consideration... etc.  But if the counts do not get taken away for the work performed, then the examiner may just be slightly annoyed, but that'll be about it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 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 1.153 seconds with 18 queries.