DOCSLIB.ORG

Additional Legal Status Events Added from US Pair, US Gazette and the FDA Orange Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Additional Legal Status Events Added from US Pair, US Gazette and the FDA Orange Book Additional legal status events added from US Pair, US Gazette and the FDA Orange book To search for patents containing these legal event codes use the following syntax where the part in blue is the legal event code. Examples Identify patents with associated and an associated Inter Parties Review (IPR) event: CO/ACT=US/IPR Identify patents associated to FDA approved drugs: CO/ACT=US/356 Identify patents with re-examination requests handled by PTAB: CO/ACT=US/RR US patents covered under the AIA act: AIA/ACT=“YES” Identify patents deposed by “small entities”. Small entities received a reduced application rate at the USPTO: Business Entity Status s SMALL/ACT Event code Event impact Event description US/354 Positive Patent term extension under 35 U.S.C 154(b) until/for US/355 Positive Patent term extension under 35 u.s.c. 155 until/for US/356 Positive Term extended Under 35 U.S.C. 156 and US 21 C.F.R. 314.108. US/136A Neutral Authorization for Extension of Time all replies US/355A Positive Patent term extension or patent term restoration according to 35 u.s.c. 155, 155a or 156 US/371RC Neutral Receipt of 371 Request US/712F Neutral GB: DETERMINATION OF FOREIGN ENTITLEMENT (SECTION 12(1)/1977 UK LAW) US/712J Neutral GB: DETERMINATION OF FOREIGN ENTITLEMENT (SECT. 12/1977) US/740B Neutral GB: APPLICATION DECIDED BY THE COMPTROLLER (SECT. 40/1977) US/AAC Positive Advisory Action Counted, Not Yet Mailed US/AAPLD Neutral After appeal decision US/ABAN Negative Letter Express Abandonment of the application US/ABEA Negative Expressly Abandoned -- During Publication Process US/ABN Negative Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action US/ABN30 Negative Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to 30-Day Property Rights Letter US/ABNAFT Negative Abandoned -- After Examiner's Answer or Board of Appeals Decision US/ABNBAP Negative Abandonment after Board of Appeals US/ABNEA Negative Expressly Abandoned -- During Examination US/ABNEAP Negative Expressly Abandoned -- During Publication Process US/ABNEXDIS Neutral Dismissed - Petition for express abandonment under rule 37 CRF 1.138(c)(d) US/ABNEXM Neutral Express Abandonment (during Examination) US/ABNFC Negative Abandonment for Failure to Correct Drawings/Oath/NonPub Request US/ABNFCD Neutral Mail Abandonment for Failure to Correct Drawings/Oath US/ABNFFNP Negative Abandonment -- Inc. Application under Rule 53(b) - Filing Fee Not Paid US/ABNFFP Negative Abandonment -- Inc. Application under Rule 53(b) - Filing Fee Paid US/ABNFP Negative Abandoned -- Failure to Pay Issue Fee US/ABNFPIP Negative Abandonment for Failure to Pay Issue Fee US/ABNFW Negative Abandoned -- File-Wrapper-Continuation Parent Application US/ABNFWC Negative Abandonment for Purposes of Filing an FWC - File Combined with Child Application US/ABNIN Negative Abandoned -- Incomplete (pre-examination) US/ABNINC Negative Abandonment -- Incomplete Application - Preexam US/ABNINP Negative Abandoned -- Incomplete Application (Pre-examination) US/ABNNOA Neutral Express Abandonment after Allowance US/ABNOA Negative Abandoned for Failure to Respond to an Office Action. US/ABNPD Negative Aband. Recorded after Prior Disposal US/ABNPETG Neutral Granted - Petition for express abandonment under rule 37 CRF 1.138(c)(d) US/ABNPP Negative Abandonment -- During Preexam Processing US/ABNRST Positive ABANDONED - RESTORED US/ABR Neutral Amendment After Brief US/ACL Neutral Request for Expedited Processing, Design Rocket Docket US/ACL12 Neutral Petition for 12-month Accelerated Exam US/ACLAGE Neutral Petition to make special based on Age/Health US/ACLEA Neutral Petition to make special by Exp Abandon Copend App US/ACLEXM Neutral Accelerated Exam - Transmittal amendment/reply US/ACLGREEN Neutral Green Tech Petition under 37 CFR 1.102 US/ACLLS Neutral Petition to Make Special-LawSchool US/ACLN Neutral Special New US/ACLOV Neutral Accelerated Exam Over US/ACLPPH Neutral Petition to make special under Patent Prosecution Hwy US/ACLPPHD Neutral Patent Prosecution Highway decision on request/petition to make special US/ACLRQ Neutral Accelerated Examination Request US/ACLTRK1D Neutral TrackOne Request Denied US/ACLTRK1G Neutral TrackOne Request Granted US/ACLTRK1RQ Neutral TrackOne Accelerated US/ACPA Neutral Continued Prosecution Application - Continuation (ACPA) US/ACPNF Neutral Action closing prosecution (non-final) US/ACRT Neutral Application Involved in Court Proceedings US/AFR Neutral Amendment after Final Rejection US/AIA Neutral First Inventor File Indicated: US/AIA155R Neutral AIA 1.55/1.78 statement retracted US/AIA155S Neutral AIA 1.55/1.78 Indicator set US/AMSB Neutral Amendment Submitted/Entered with Filing of CPA/RCE US/ANA Neutral Amendment after Notice of Allowance (Rule 312) US/ANP Neutral Amendment after notice of appeal US/APB Neutral Appeal Brief Filed US/APLWD Neutral Appeal Dismissed / Withdrawn US/APNBR Neutral Application Number Change US/APNMA Neutral missassigned application number US/APNRDY Neutral Application Removed from Issue-Ready Status US/APPLIC Neutral Application Found Licensable US/APRDY Neutral Application Is Considered Ready for Issue US/APSIR Neutral Approval of SIR Request US/APST Positive PAIR Application Status US/ARESP Neutral Awaiting Response to Notice of Informality or CRF Action. US/ARGAD Neutral Amendment/Argument after BPAI Decision US/ART Neutral USPTO Art Group US/AS Neutral Assignment US/AS01 Neutral Change of name US/AS02 Neutral Assignment of assignor's interest US/AS03 Neutral Merger US/AS04 Neutral Licence US/AS05 Neutral Letters testamentary US/AS06 Neutral Security interest US/AS07 Neutral Mortgage US/AS08 Neutral Conditional assignment US/AS09 Neutral Assignment of a part of assignors interest US/AS10 Neutral Assignment of 1/2 of assignors interest US/AS11 Neutral Assignment of 1/4 of assignors interest US/AS12 Neutral Court appointment US/AS13 Neutral Decree of distribution US/AS14 Neutral Letters of administration US/AS15 Neutral Lien US/AS16 Neutral Option US/AS17 Neutral Release by secured party US/AS18 Neutral Assignment of assignor's interest - correction information US/AS19 Neutral Corrective assignment - correct previous item US/AS20 Neutral Assign the entire interest US/AS21 Neutral Change of address US/AS22 Neutral Collateral assignment US/AS23 Neutral Merger and change of name US/AS24 Neutral Release of security agreement US/AS25 Neutral Release of security interest US/AS26 Neutral Security agreement US/AS27 Neutral Nunc pro tunc assignment US/AS28 Neutral Corrected assignment US/AS29 Neutral Bill of sale US/AS30 Neutral Confirmatory assignment US/AS31 Neutral Confirmatory licence US/AS32 Neutral Corrected recordation for cover sheet US/AS33 Neutral Exclusive licence US/AS34 Neutral Re-record of an instrument recorded US/AS35 Neutral Release US/AS36 Neutral Re-record to correct error in recordation data US/AS37 Neutral To correct the name of the assignee US/AS99 Neutral Other assignments US/AUQ Neutral Response to ex parte quayle action entered and forwarded to examiner US/B1-A Positive Patent Granted US/B2 Positive Granted patent as second publication US/B2-A Positive Patent Granted US/B3 Positive Reexamination certificate third or further reexamination US/B3-A Positive Patent Granted US/C1 Neutral Amended after Acceptance/Grant of a standard patent US/C2 Neutral Reexamination certificate (2nd level) US/C3 Neutral Reexamination certificate (3rd level) US/CBM Neutral Aia trial proceeding filed before patent trial and appeal board: covered business methods US/CC Neutral Certificate of Correction - Post Issue Communication US/CCB Neutral Certificate of correction for reexamination US/CFD Neutral Child Filing Details US/CO Positive Commissioner ordered reexamination US/CONR Positive Confirmation of validity after reexamination decision US/CPA Neutral Continuing Prosecution Application - Divisional (DCPA) US/CRFAR Neutral Awaiting response for informality, fee deficiency or crf action US/CTEQ Neutral Ex Parte Quayle Action US/CTFR Neutral Final Rejection US/CTNF Neutral Non-Final Rejection US/CTNFRR Neutral Response after Final Action Received US/CTNFRX Neutral Reexam - Non-Final Action US/D356 Negative Disappeared from list for patent term extension under 35 u.s.c. 156 US/DC Negative Terminal Disclaimer Filed US/DCB Negative Disclaimer for reexamination filed US/DD Negative Disclaimer and dedication filed US/DE Negative Dedication filed US/DED Negative Post Issue Communication - Dedicate Life of Patent to Public US/DI Neutral Adverse decision in interference US/disc Neutral DISC US/DISQE Neutral Electronic Terminal Disclaimer - Approved US/DJ Negative All references should be deleted, no patent was granted US/DJB Negative All references should be deleted, no reexamination certificate was issued US/DK Neutral Attorney Docket Number US/DKEX Neutral Case docketed to examiner US/DKNC Neutral Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination US/DOCK Neutral Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU US/DP Positive Notification of acceptance of delayed payment of maintenance fee US/DR Neutral Adverse decision in reference US/DRCECAP Neutral Disposal for a RCE / CPA / R129 US/DSIR Negative Denial of SIR Request US/ENTS Neutral Business Entity Status US/ENTYSTA Neutral Entity Status Set to Undiscounted US/ER Neutral Errata US/ERFP Positive Inaccurately listed as having expired when, in fact, they did not expire US/ERLY Neutral Request for Early Publication US/ERR Neutral Erratum US/EXMR Neutral USPTO Examiner Name US/EXPDLICD Negative Denial Letter For Expedited Foreign Licenses US/EXPDLICG Neutral Grant Letter For
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intellectual Property Outlook: Cases and Trends to Follow in 2012
    February 2012 Intellectual Property Outlook: Cases and Trends to Follow in 2012 BY ROBERT M. MASTERS, TAD RICHMAN, & LISA LEUNG I. Introduction In the coming year, we anticipate a series of events and decisions with varying degrees of impact on intellectual property law in the United States and, in turn, the way we advise our clients. This article highlights cases we are monitoring that present, in our view, significant issues relating to various aspects of intellectual property law. Most of these cases are pending appeal at some level, and each has the potential for considerable impact on the landscape of U.S. intellectual property law. A small number of recently decided cases have also been selected for inclusion in this discussion, as it remains to be seen precisely how these decisions will play out in practice over the coming year. Lastly, we take a look at continuing trends in the intellectual property marketplace and review key legislation, including what to expect from the recently enacted America Invents Act. II. Cases to Watch in 2012 A. The Scope of Patentable Subject Matter 1. Medical Diagnostic and Treatment Methods Post-Bilski The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., No. 10-1150, on December 7, 2011. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has taken on the question of the validity of Prometheus’s asserted method claims. As before, Mayo challenges the Federal Circuit’s holding that Prometheus’s method claims recite patentable subject matter under §101. Unlike before, Mayo’s appeal now derives from a post-Bilski decision below.1 Prometheus is the sole and exclusive licensee of two patents claiming methods for determining the optimal dosage of thiopurine drugs used to treat certain autoimmune diseases.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Murray Wilson
    In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Case No. UNCT/14/2) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant v. GOVERNMENTOFCANADA Respondent EXPERT REPORT OF MURRA Y WILSON l. INTRODUCTION l. M y name is Murray Wilson and I reside in the City of Ottawa, Ontario. 2. I confirm that I have no relationship to Eli Lilly and Company or any of its affiliates. 3. I worked for the Canadian Patent Office for o ver 3 5 years as a patent examiner and in various other capacities such as the acting Chair of the Patent Appeal Board. Based upon that experience, I believe that 1 am qualified to provide the factual information and opinions set out below. 4. During my 35 year career with the Canadian Patent Office I examined and reviewed thousands of patent applications, including pharmaceutical patents. I have extensive experience and in-depth knowledge about the Canadian Patent Office practice relating to the examination and granting of patents during the time period the Strattera and Zyprexa patent applications were examined and the patents granted (patent 2,209,735 and patent 2,041,113, respectively ). 5. After graduating from Carleton University in 1971 with a Bachelor ofMechanical Engineering Degree, I started working in the Canadian Patent Office in 1971 as a patent examiner in the Mechanical Division, examining patent applications in the material handling arts. 6. In 1981, I became a senior patent examiner with responsibilities for examining patent applications that were filed in French.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Japanese Patent Prosecution
    The ‘Endless Loop’ of Japanese Patent Prosecution By Samson Helfgott and Paula E. Hopkins Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP First published in the May 2006 issue of World Intellectual Property Report Commentary The ‘Endless Loop’ of Japanese Patent Prosecution By Samson Helfgott and Paula E.Hopkins.Samson Helfgott During the course of the appeal trial, the Trial Examiners are is a Partner and Director of Patents, and Paula E. Hopkins is allowed to find a new reason and/or new prior art to reject the an associate in the IP Department of Katten Muchin patent application other than those stipulated in the decision of the Rosenman LLP, New York. The authors can be contacted examiner (Section 150, subsection 1 and Section 153, subsection by e-mail at: [email protected] and 1). In such case, the Board has to notify the new reason and/or [email protected] prior art to the applicant and allow the applicant to make counter-arguments against that reason and/or prior art before Patent prosecution in any patent system has its normal course of issuance of the decision of the Board (Section 159, subsection 2 delays. In significant cases, especially when broad claims are and Section 50). Accordingly, by way of example, although the being prosecuted, even more time may be required until a examiner may have only rejected the claim based upon certain resolution of the patent issues is reached. However, within the sections, such as lack of novelty, the Board of Trial Examiners can Japanese Patent System peculiarities within the law make such reject those claims for other reasons, such as indefiniteness, lack delays indefinite, resulting in an “endless loop” of prosecution of support, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting: a Guidebook for Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World
    Foley Hoag eBook PATENTING: A Guidebook For Patenting in a Post-America Invents Act World by Beth E. Arnold PATENTING: A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING IN A POST-AMERICA INVENTS ACT WORLD IN A POST-AMERICA A GUIDEBOOK FOR PATENTING PATENTING: 1 Contents Preface ............................................................................................................1 Chapter 1 What Is a Patent? ..........................................................................................2 Chapter 2 What Is Potentially Patentable? ................................................................5 Chapter 3 What Is Not Patentable? .............................................................................7 Chapter 4 How Is a Patent Obtained? .......................................................................16 Chapter 5 What Should You Do Before Filing a Patent Application? ...............25 Chapter 6 What Shouldn’t You Do Before Filing a Patent Application? ...........28 Chapter 7 How Are Foreign Patents Obtained? .....................................................29 Chapter 8 Who Is an Inventor on a Patent? ............................................................33 Chapter 9 Who Owns the Patent? ..............................................................................35 Chapter 10 How Long Is a Patent in Effect? .............................................................39 About Foley Hoag ...............................................................................................42 About the Author: Beth E. Arnold .........................................................................43
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Prosecution from an Examiner's Perspective
    January 31, 2019 31, January Gray Andrew and Pezzner Benjamin ALLOWANCE THE ATTAINING AND ACTION OFFICE THE ANTICIPATING EXAMINER’SFROM AN PERSPECTIVE: PROSECUTION PATENT © 2019 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Presenter Background • Patent Examiner: 3 years – 3 different art units; my last art unit was run very well, we followed all of the rules, primaries were very good, SPE was fair, I didn't understand the criticism from the blogs – goal was to document the thinking of an examiner so I could use it on the outside • Patent Attorney: 2 years – expected the goal to be outwitting examiners and getting allowances – goal turned out to be attaining higher quality examination (with allowances being a byproduct) 2 Presentation Goal • Make Examination Great Again! – show you how to get patent examiners to follow their own rules, to follow their training, to be more accountable – more accountability = higher quality examination = more allowances 3 Agenda 1. Day in the life of an examiner – motivations, training, oversight 2. Using rules to get leverage – the rules that, if broken, result in a do-over 3. Using leverage to move prosecution forward – without losing examiner goodwill (diplomatic vs. adversarial); interviews 4. When diplomacy fails – steps to take before appeal 5. 101 developments – examiner training, thoughts on implementation 4 PART 1 DAY IN THE LIFE OF AN EXAMINER Day in the Life: Motivation • Evaluated based on quantity (production) and quality (master review form) • Main motivation: work as quickly and efficiently as possible (quantity)
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Fast and Slow: Examiner and Applicant Use of Prior Art
    Law Faculty Scholarship WVU College of Law 2020 Patenting Fast and Slow: Examiner and Applicant Use of Prior Art Shine Tu Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/law_faculty Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons PATENTING FAST AND SLOW: EXAMINER AND APPLICANT USE OF PRIOR ART* SHINE SEAN Tu* ABSTRACT Previous studies have shown that an applicant'sability to obtain a patent is inexorably linked to the random assignment of a patent examiner.1 However, not all patent examiners are created equal. Some patent examiners allow patent applicationsquickly within just one or two Office Actions, resulting in only a few months of substantive patent prosecution. In contrast, otherpatent examiners constantly rejectpatents applications, which can result in unnecessarilydelaying prosecution and years of substantive patent prosecution. This study focuses on how different examiners use prior art rejections to prolong or compact prosecution. Prior art rejections are one of the most important hurdles to obtaining a patent. Specifically, the use of prior art rejections directly impacts the time and effort it takes to obtain a patent. Anticipation and obviousness rejections are usually the most important and difficult *Permission is hereby granted for noncommercial reproduction of this Article in whole or in part for education or research purposes, including the making of multiple copies for classroom use, subject only to the condition that the name of the author, a complete citation, and this copyright notice and grant
    [Show full text]
  • Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: a Proposal for Patent Bounties
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2001 Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties John R. Thomas Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/306 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 305-353 (2001) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Courts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications March 2010 Collusion and Collective Action in the Patent System: A Proposal for Patent Bounties 2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 305-353 (2001) John R. Thomas Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/306/ Posted with permission of the author COLLUSION AND COLLECTIVE ACTION IN THE PATENT SYSTEM: A PROPOSAL FOR PATENT BOUNTIES John R. Thomas* Persistent commentary contends that the Patent Office is issuing patents that appropriate public domain concepts at an alarming fre­ quency. Complaints of low patent quality enjoy growing resonance with regard to business methods, computer software, and other inven­ tions for which patents were not traditionally sought. In this article, Professor Jay Thomas explains how the judiciary's lenient view of patentable subject matter and utility standards, along with miserly congressional funding policies, have rendered the Patent Office an in­ creasingly porous agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Amazon Jungle K the “One-Click” Patent and Its Reexamination
    early three Ndecades ago the U.S. Supreme Court, in Diamond v. Diehr K CASE COMMENT Claim 11 states: art. Nevertheless, he stated that claims 1 and reexamination helps the USPTO to A method for ordering an item using a 11 would be considered patentable if they compensate for the shortcomings of a purely client system, the method comprising: were amended to include a shopping cart ex parte examination process. displaying information identifying the model as an element of the claim. The history of the Amazon.com One-Click item and displaying an indication of a On November 29, 2007, Amazon.com patent reminds one of the authors of this single action that is to be performed to responded to the Office Action with proposed comment of his own experiences in dealing with order the identified item; and in response to amendments to claims 1 and 11. Amazon.com’s another controversial software patent, U.S. only the indicated single action being proposed amendment to claim 11 reads: Patent No. 5,241,671, issued to Compton’s performed, sending to a server system a A method for ordering an item using a Multimedia early in the digital age in 1993. request to order the identified item whereby client system, the method comprising: Shortly after taking office as Commissioner of the item is ordered independently of a displaying information identifying the the USPTO he faced a public furor over the shopping cart model and the order is item purchasable through a shopping cart issuance of this patent, which covered a wide fulfilled to complete a purchase of the item.
    [Show full text]
  • Office Actions, Notices of Allowance, and Other Office Notices Previously Mailed to Areas of Texas and Louisiana Affected by Hurricane Harvey
    Office Actions, Notices of Allowance, and Other Office Notices Previously Mailed to Areas of Texas and Louisiana Affected by Hurricane Harvey The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a notice announcing that the USPTO considers the effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas and Louisiana that began on August 25, 2017, to be an "extraordinary situation" within the meaning of37 CPR 1.183. That notice provides additional relief for affected applicants and reexamination parties in certain situations. See https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/operational-status/customers-affected-hurricane-harvey. The instant notice supplements that notice. For patent applications and reexamination proceedings pending in the USPTO as of August 25, 2017, having a correspondence address in the areas of Texas and Louisiana affected by Hurricane Harvey that the USPTO has identified as being in affected areas based on the zip code ofthe correspondence address, in which a reply to an Office action (final, non-final, or other), a notice of allowance, or other Office notice (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Office communication") is outstanding, and for which the statutory or non-statutory time period set for reply has not yet expired, the USPTO is withdrawing the Office communication, and re-issuing the Office communication with a new time period for reply. See MPEP § 710.06 (Situations When Reply Period Is Reset or Restarted). The Office communication must have been outstanding on August 25, 2017. Note that the USPTO will not restart any time period for reply once the statutory or non-statutory time period has expired. The United States Postal Service (USPS) has indicated that there is a service disruption in the areas of Texas and Louisiana affected by Hurricane Harvey.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Process Approximate Timeline US Only International
    Patent Process Approximate Timeline Total Time (years) Provisional Patent Application Filed A provisional application is filed if and when data supports a filing. Provisionals must be filed within one year of a public disclosure. Establishes a priority date. 1 year US Only International Non-provisional Patent Application Filed PCT Patent Application Filed A non-provisional US patent application is filed within PCT patent application filed within one year of provi- one year of the provisional application. This applica- sional, if seeking international protection. Public dis- tion will be examined by the USPTO. closures eliminate the possibility of foreign protection. 6 months 6 months Patent Application Published International Search Report Received A restriction requirement may be received during The International Searching Authority issues a this time if the USPTO determines there are multiple report detailing their prior art search and preliminary inventions in one application. opinion on patentability. 1 year Patent Application Published 1 year First Office Action Received The patent examiner provides notification of National Stage Entered which claims in the application have been rejected or accepted along with reasoning. Countries in which patent protection is desired are selected and separate patent applications are filed for 3 months each. Due to cost, proceeding with foreign patent protection requires a license. Respond to Office Action Patent Attorney issues response to USPTO in three months, extensions possible, but costly. National Examinations 3-12 months Patent is examined independently by examiners from the patent office in each selected country. Additional Office Actions Received Patent Issued Patent Issued UTRF: Health Science Center 901-448-7827 Multi Disciplinary Office 865.974.1882 • utrf.tennessee.edu.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Office Action Rejections for Patent Applications: It Ain’T Over Until the Fat Lady Sings…Usually John W
    PROdUcT ProtecTiOn And ThE LAw NEWS Final Office Action Rejections for Patent Applications: It Ain’t Over Until the Fat Lady Sings…Usually John W. Boger, Esq. Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti P.C. The patent process can be a long and, at times, tedious process. specification, claims or drawings, new arguments or new evidence Many inventors assume that once you file your application for supporting patentability), the examiner will withdraw the with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), finality of the Office Action and the submission will be entered the hard work is done. Unfortunately, for most cases, the and considered by the examiner. Essentially, the RCE allows hard work has just begun. It is highly unusual for a patent the inventor to file a second application to keep the prosecution application to not be rejected and receive at least one Office of the first application alive. The RCE application stays with Action from the patent examiner. Typically, inventors will the same examiner that was reviewing the first application receive multiple Office Actions in which their invention is and keeps the same application serial number. Filing an RCE is rejected for any number of reasons, including lack of novelty, capitalism at its best: pay more money and file a submission to obviousness and ineligible subject matter. When an inventor buy another full examination of your application. However, a receives a Final Office Action, he has now come to a critical potential downside to filing an RCE is, since the application is crossroads in the prosecution highway. The inventor may staying with the same examiner, that examiner may just repeat choose from three options: (1) abandon the application, (2) file the same basis for his rejections without considering the newly a Request for Continued Examination and pay a fee or (3) file filed arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Snell&Wilmer
    Snell & Wilmer Understanding what makes you unique.® Ten Tips on Preparing and Prosecuting Patent Applications August 17, 2017 by David E. Rogers 1. Keep Your Eyes on the Prize. A patent defines a piece of intellectual property. As with a parcel of land, the patent’s owner can legally prevent any trespass (called an infringement) on the patent. Analogous to the size of a parcel of land, the size of a patent (usually referred to as its scope) is critical in determining its value. Mistakes can mean the difference between a patent worth millions and a worthless piece of paper. Patents prepared and/or prosecuted with little forethought about the end game, which is commercializing, selling or licensing the invention, often have little value. Mistakes can mean the difference between a patent worth millions and a worthless piece of paper. 2. Obtaining a Patent Is Not the Goal; Obtaining Broad Claim Scope Is the Goal. (a) Merely obtaining a patent is not the goal. The goal is to maximize the scope of meaningful patent protection to which your invention is entitled. Put yourself in a competitor’s shoes - how would you design around the claims in your patent application? If you can conceive a practical design-around option, modify the claims and plug the gap if possible. By initially preparing narrow claims, or unnecessarily narrowing claims during prosecution, you create design-around opportunities competitors can use to circumvent the patent. (b) To support broad claim scope, the written description of the invention and drawings should be detailed and thorough. (c) Patent prosecution is not a “negotiation” with a USPTO Examiner, unless there is a misunderstanding or minor disagreement.
    [Show full text]