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 ... 50
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: patent pdf files for figures
« on: February 14, 2018, 09:23:30 AM »
It should be just one pdf file that has all the figures in it.


Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Trying to get a pro bono patent
« on: February 12, 2018, 11:12:29 AM »
The only pro bono program I am aware of is here:

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Level of Detail in Description for PPA.
« on: February 08, 2018, 09:52:43 AM »
You only need to focus on what is new and different about your device.  If you can use traditional screws for example than its fine to just use the term fastener or screw and leave it at that.

I would only label the large/important parts of the device and certainly make sure to label any new and different elements but you probably don't need to label all 100+ parts if there is nothing special about most of them.

Patent Questions and Advice / Re: improved
« on: February 04, 2018, 06:44:02 AM »
Sorry I don't understand your question.    Can you explain more?

In the US there is no requirement to state if something is "improved".

That might be worth a shot if nothing else is working.

If you already filed the application than forget about my cavity and area idea because if those were not labeled at the time you filed the case the examiner will not let you pull those terms into the claims now.

Do you specifically list your container as having paintballs or do you simply say it is configured to hold paintballs?  If the later I understand the examiner's point in that you are not really claiming the paintballs so you may have to re-word your claims to add them as a structural part of your invention but the risk/downside to that is that if someone makes an indentical device but does not sell it with paintballs they may not be directly infringing on your patent.

I would just try to speak with the examiner as much as you can to see if he/her can give you some suggestions or pointers on how to reword the claims.

I assume that having the paintballs take up most of the empty space is a very important part of the invention and helps overcome the prior art?   If not, I would not even try to include that language in my claims.

If it really is a very important part of the invention you could try to first define the empty space of as a "cavity" with a first area (A1) and then after the paintballs are added the cavity size has an area less than A1 but greater than 0.

If you go down that path just make sure you clearly label A1 and 0 in your figures so the examiner can see exactly what you are talking about.


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. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50