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 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10
 81 
 on: 02-21-18 at 11:50 am 
Started by eraechoin - Last post by eraechoin
I would include both embodiments in a single application and make the mounting options in the figures as dotted line. Simple

Thank you so much cheesepep!

To be honest I've never thought about this :) But once you mentioned, it seems to be exactly the direction that I should go. Does it matter if the two embodiments in the application have identical solid lines (for camera body) and the only portion that shows specific embodiment environment (mounting option) is in broken line? idk but I was under an impression or intuition that the solid line part in both embodiments shall be slightly different but I could be wrong.

I don't want to bother you too much on this as I certainly know that we don't answers for granted. So I do appreciate every response. If you think there are some additional resources I should look into myself or to enrich my knowledge, you are more than welcome to inform me.

PS: I searched around Google Patent for the past couple weeks and identified several inventions. Certainly some choose to patent both ceiling and wall mount in two separate applications. Most inventors were patenting the camera body without any mounting. I did also see the alternate embodiment options on USD657410 and USD721755, though the two embodiments in both designs look extremely identical and seem to be a combination of solid/broken line game. Maybe those were just techniques to broaden the scope of protection.

 82 
 on: 02-21-18 at 02:18 am 
Started by townizm - Last post by townizm
Those IP boutiques(Oliff, Oblon, Sughrue, ...) that provide a short path for non-equity partners, how much do these non-equity partners get paid? How do they compare with same class year in big law? Any idea?

 83 
 on: 02-21-18 at 01:18 am 
Started by khazzah - Last post by DCIPAgent
Thanks for the reply. Yes examiner is very vague in his response. He doesnt provide TSM or reason to combine references or reason why speech mechanism would work for gesture. So, I definitely have a lot to argue here.

I do have a stupid question. If prior art claim has "optimization" of algorithm and application has "customization" of algorithm, where prior art really optimizes a code meaning makes it faster for processor to run vs. customization in claimed spec is where customized algorithm is generated to meet specific memory space. The claim of app says "customization" and but spec calls it "optimization" in many places of the application. Since you argue claim in light of spec, can I really argue optimization vs. Customization because they are two separate things?

 84 
 on: 02-20-18 at 07:19 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
If the AA is filed after the original 3 month date, you would need to file your response the same day (not really practical) to avoid extension fees.  The benefit is that you can usually get it done with a single month extension fee, especially where the examiner takes more than a month or two to get back to you.


It's actually pretty easy, especially if you're just going to file the appeal if the A-F doesn't work with the examiner.  And even with an RCE, you generally know if you're going to need that, too, so can have the amendment/reply prepped in advance.  (Note, I'm in-house so I'm free to waste my own time.  Edit:  And can always get the reply/RCE drafted up after I get the kids fed.)

 85 
 on: 02-20-18 at 06:16 pm 
Started by ProSeGuy - Last post by ProSeGuy
Thanks smgsmc for your thoughts, Th examiner has given me multiple interviews and has offered to give me one more. I'll update my claims and will ask the examiner for his thoughts about the updated independent claim. I feel a whole lot more prepared and can ask better questions. Thanks again.

 86 
 on: 02-20-18 at 04:11 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by ThomasPaine
"so the mailing date of the AA is the 3 mo. date now"

Well, not exactly, the mailing date of the AA is the end of the SSP.

 87 
 on: 02-20-18 at 02:50 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by ThomasPaine
"many people I know watch for the AA in PAIR once the timing goes past the 3-month point, with the plan to file their RCE or Notice of Appeal on the same day so as to avoid any extension fee."

I do that. And then I check whether the PTO improperly charged an extension fee, and if/when they do, I file a request for refund. 

Happens more often that I'd like.

 88 
 on: 02-20-18 at 02:41 pm 
Started by kokes - Last post by fewyearsin
I removed the application to be safe.
This is kind of like saying "I removed the bullet after I shot him."  It doesn't really make it better, the damage (if any) has been done.  Though those kinds of disclosures are almost impossible for Examiners to find on their own.

 89 
 on: 02-20-18 at 02:38 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by fewyearsin
If the AA is filed after the original 3 month date, you would need to file your response the same day (not really practical) to avoid extension fees.  The benefit is that you can usually get it done with a single month extension fee, especially where the examiner takes more than a month or two to get back to you.

 90 
 on: 02-20-18 at 02:26 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
I believe you are correct.  A 1-month extension is owed up to 3/15, and 2 months if between 3/16 and 4/15, 3 months between 4/16 and 5/1 (cannot go past 5/1 as noted in the last sentence you quoted from the MPEP).

After filing an after-final reply within 2 months, many people I know watch for the AA in PAIR once the timing goes past the 3-month point, with the plan to file their RCE or Notice of Appeal on the same day so as to avoid any extension fee.

Pages: 1 ... 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 0.11 seconds with 18 queries.