Patent and Invention Help Forum

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Brad

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49
Sounds like you have a good examiner that is trying to work with you which is great.   Sorry I am overbooked right now and would not be able to help with your declaration.   Good luck though!

This is a tough one.  Here is how I personally would try to respond:

1)  Put together some draft arguments and amendments and arrange a phone call with the examiner.  In about 30-50% of cases they will try to work with you and find some language that may work to remove the rejection.   If this fails, move to step 2.

2) Trying to make arguments alone is almost always a losing battle (even if you are in the right).  Its usually best easiest to find some physical structure about your invention that is not shown in the prior art and add that to your claims to overcome the rejection.   If you can add that to your claims plus make some arguments the examiner will be more likely to approve.

3) If you cannot find anything and are forced to make arguments only read the MPEP as they provide some ways to properly overcome these rejections such as the combination that the examiner is suggesting would cause the invention to be inoperable and fail as intended.   Here is a good free resource with some sample arguments:

Sorry a patent cannot be used to make new claims for things like new/silly ideas.   If the product already exits its unlikely you will get a patent approved on it even if you are the first one to think of a funny/silly way to use it.

You may want to consider other forms of IP protection such as a trademark on the name or use or maybe a copyright on the instructions on how to use it:

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: refiling provisional patent?
« on: December 27, 2017, 06:42:42 AM »
Hi Dave,

Thanks for the message.

You cannot link provisional patent apps together so you cannot really "reference" the old one.   What you need to do is update/modify your old one and then re-submit it but it be treated as its own brand new (stand alone) provisional without any benefit of your earlier filed one.

I wrote a post on some of the pros/cons of re-filing a provisional here:

Doubtful anyone can answer this specifically here as infringement type questions are best handled by an attorney with litigation experience ($400+ per hour) but this may help:

1) I would make a "claim chart" for each element in your claims and compare that to the other device to see if it infringes:
(note that to infringe they only have to copy just one claim - not all of your claims)

2) For your spring as a connector method, you may be able to stop them under the "doctrine of equivalents" assuming you did not narrow your claims to specifically say "spring" during the back and forth with the examiner:

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Maternal and Paediatric Metabolism
« on: December 16, 2017, 07:35:11 AM »
Anyone who helped develop the claimed invention should be listed as an "inventor".   There is no limit so you could have 1 or 100 people if needed.   They can all be PhDs or none of them may be PhDs.  That does not matter.

It really depends on your invention.   If its a device or physical product you should describe all of the details and features about it but you don't have to disclose things like how much it will cost to manufacture it, where you will source the parts from, who the customers may be, etc.  All of those things are more relevant for a business plan (not the patent) so I would keep them out.

A good rule of thumb is that if someone can buy your product, anything they can easily see and figure out for themselves is not really something you can keep secret anyway so you can feel okay including in your patent.   More of the "behind the scenes" type information that people cannot figure out easily from looking at your invention may be something to consider keeping out of the patent.

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: PPA Cover sheet
« on: December 06, 2017, 08:59:26 AM »
Either form is acceptable and I have used both without any issues. 

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: rubik cube's uses
« on: November 27, 2017, 08:33:04 AM »
The original rubiks cube technology (mechanism) should no longer be covered by any active patents as its more than 20 years old.

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: PPA active
« on: November 27, 2017, 08:31:37 AM »
Your patent should be pending the day it was filed (not when you get the receipt).  However, to play it safe I like to wait until I get the receipt because this will tell you if you did anything wrong.

For example, I had a client that filed his own application but forgot to attach some of the figures so in his case he was not really protected until the date when the patent office received the figures from him.

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: mistake in my PPA
« on: November 22, 2017, 02:26:55 PM »
Does the figures show the proper radial location?   If so, it should be a big deal and you can just wait until you file the full non-provisional to correct this. 

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Identical elements description
« on: November 22, 2017, 08:24:21 AM »
To play it safe I would describe each of them in separate paragraphs but you can pretty much copy/paste from your first description. 

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: PATENT on 3d printer
« on: November 21, 2017, 08:34:45 AM »
It is not possible to answer this question.  You would have to look at all of the patents which are currently active and cover 3D printing, then, look at each claim in those patents to see if your new printer infringes on any of those claims.

There are patent attorneys who will do this work for you and give you a "freedom to operate opinion" but they can be expensive (usually $1,000+ depending on how many patents they have to review).

Yes the frustrating thing about patents is that often the attorney or person writing the patent will include a lot of statements and things that they don't have any evidence or data for but it can still be used by the examiner to block your own patent.   I don't know of any easy way around this unless you can somehow prove that what they first patent was proposing would not work as intended or could not be combined or modified to work the same as yours.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49