Posts Tagged ‘pto’

Advancing Examination of a Patent Application Out of Turn

Sunday, 26 February, 2012 15:36 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

As many of our readers know, there is a somewhat significant backlog in patent examination right now. For example, the average time to get a patent allowed now is about 33 months.  You can reference the patent dashboard for more information.  I know that this sounds terrible, but it is a huge improvement, and things are going the right way.  For example, the patent backlog is down to 657,000 now – which is significantly lower than the 900,000 that I remember.

There are ways to try to shortcut the long wait associated with with the patent examination process, provided that the Applicant meets certain criteria.  I will be writing about many of these options over the next several posts, but the one that I wanted to discuss first is based on the age of the inventor.  Inventors over the age of 65 can advance examination of their patent application out of turn.  This is outlined in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedures (MPEP) Section 708.02.  Maybe it is because I am getting older, but I just don’t think that 65 is that old, but if the Patent Office sees fit to provide a benefit to inventors over the age of 65 – take it!

So what exactly does it mean to file a petition to make special?  In short, the Patent Office is offering to grant “special status” to an application that has a named inventor that is over the age of 65. Imagine that a patent Examiner’s desk might have a stack of papers on it that is about 3 feet high.  That stack of papers represents patent applications that still need to be examined.  Now imagine that the application you just submitted is on the bottom of that stack.  After the Patent Examiner receives the approved petition to make special based on the age of the inventor, your application is taken from the bottom of the stack and put right on top.  This is a very simplistic explanation, but this type of petition will likely provide an examination that lasts only about a year.

The biggest advantage to this type of petition is that it is completely free.  Once you receive a filing receipt, simply fill in the form and file it.  Another huge advantage is that this type of petition is automatically processed.  In other words, there is no need to wait for the petitions branch at the Patent Office to make a decision on the petition (sometimes taking upwards of three weeks or so).  A really good write-up on the procedure is available from the Patent Office here.

This petition can be submitted even if just one of the inventors on a patent application is over the age of 65.  It is imperative, however, not to try to trick the system.  Please do not just name someone who is over the age of 65 as an inventor for the sake of filing the petition.  This will likely lead to all sorts of headaches down the road when trying to enforce the patent.  For example, you do not want to run into an accusation that you have committed fraud on the patent office by naming someone over the age of 65 as an inventor when they truly are not an inventor. This could lead to invalidation of your patent.  In order to be named an inventor, one has to have had something to do with at least one of the claims that are allowed in a patent application (more on this in a future post).

As I will discuss in later posts, there are several other ways to accelerate examination of a patent application, but none as convenient, fast, and hassle free as a petition to make special based on age.

Supplementing A Patent Application Disclosure With Prior Art Uncovered During Prosecution of A Related Patent Application

Sunday, 19 February, 2012 10:13 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

I recently posted a couple of articles directed to the duty to disclose prior art to the Patent Office during the prosecution process of your patent application.  The articles can be found here and here.  As we know from these past two articles, the duty of disclosure is vital in the patent application process, and the duty to supplement that disclosure is even more vital.  Simply because new prior art has come to light after the Applicant has already made an initial disclosure to the PTO does not relieve the Applicant from supplementing the disclosure with the newly discovered prior art.

There is a particular case that arises when an Applicant may have more than one patent application pending.  Sometimes, different Examiners may examine multiple related applications.  Of course, each Examiner may have a different search strategy and may uncover different prior art.  The examination of a patent application must be kept completely confidential.  Confidentiality of patent applications is generally outlined in 35 U.S.C. 122.  It is not as though an Examiner on one case will seek out the Examiner of a related case to go over the prior art that they have uncovered and compare notes.

The scenario that we are dealing with here can be laid out with an example.  Suppose Application #1 being examined by Examiner #1 has claims directed to elements A, B, C, D & E, and that Application #2 being examined by Examiner #2 has claims directed to elements A, B, C, F & G.  Now suppose that Examiner #1 issues a notice of allowance and indicates that no prior art reference was found that disclosed element C.  Now also suppose that around the same time, Examiner #2 issues a rejection of Application #2 and provides a prior art references that discloses element C.

Anyone see the issue yet?  The Applicant now knows of prior art that would cause Examiner #1 to issue a rejection of the invention set forth in Application #1.  If the Applicant does not disclose the prior art that Examiner #2 cited, then Application #1 will likely proceed to issue.  Is it valid?  Well – until someone else challenges it, then it probably is.  This scenario wouldn’t be tested, however, until the Applicant tried to enforce Application #1 against a potential infringer.  You can guarantee that the potential infringer, when faced with an accusation of patent infringement, will do every bit of investigation possible into the prosecution history of the application to ensure that the prosecution was proper.  Upon figuring out that the Applicant failed to disclose prior art from one application in the prosecution of another application, the door to invalidity has been opened.

To summarize, the duty of disclosure of relevant prior art cannot be overstated.  No matter how the prior art was discovered, and no matter when the prior art was discovered, the Applicant MUST fully disclose it to the PTO during prosecution of the application.

 

How Do You Amend Your Patent Application After Allowance?

Friday, 10 February, 2012 09:24 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

As has often been the case with some of my articles in the past, I like to introduce little practice tips as something interesting happens in my day to day life of prosecuting patent applications.  This past week brought me something interesting.  I received a call from an Examiner on a case that was already allowed.  This was a great case because I was dealing with an Examiner that really tried to take every possible step to help find allowable subject matter and place the application in condition for allowance.  It was not like some he examinations of the past where I was up against an Examiner that was in a rush to issue a Final Office Action.

Needless to say, however, I was a little tense when I received a call from an examiner on a case that was already allowed. As it turned out, the Examiner noticed that the serial number in the reference to the parent application was incorrect. No, that is not a typo – I am referring to the previous case upon which this case relied.  This application was a continuation-in-part application, which allowed our client to claim the benefit of the previously filed application (another post will follow shortly on continuation and continuation-in-part applications). The serial number that was referenced in the application was off by one digit. The issue, however, was that prosecution of the application was already closed. The Examiner had mailed a notice of allowance. After a notice of allowance is mailed, there can be no more amendments to the application. There is, however, a mechanism to make corrections to an application that has already been allowed, but for which the issue fee has not been paid.

The mechanism that allowed us to amend the application after the notice of allowance has been mailed is found in 37 CFR 1.312.  This section of the regulations allows for the introduction of an amendment to the patent application after the mailing of a notice of allowance.  Section 714.16(d) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) which, of course, is the bible of patent prosecution, outlines the steps necessary to amend an application after the notice of allowance has been mailed.  In short, you just have to be sure not to introduce new subject matter.  In this particular case, we were merely correcting the serial number of the parent application, so no new subject matter was added.

If the issue fee had already been paid, there is another mechanism to correct a patent. This is found in Section 1400 of the MPEP.  The only downfall of this section is that the correction is not actually made to the patent itself. Instead, a certificate of correction is attached to the patent indicating the correction that has been made. I will write more about certificates of correction in a later post. In the meantime, I just wanted you have some information regarding another practice that that I came across this past week.

Duty of Disclosure During Patent Prosecution and Supplementing the Disclosure

Friday, 03 February, 2012 14:01 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

You may recall that I wrote an article recently which noted that there is a duty of disclosure when filing a patent application in the United States.  For the sake of a quick summary, in return for the exclusive right to exploit an invention, the government requires the Applicant to disclose all prior art known to them in order to ensure a more detailed examination of the patent application.  In other words – no hiding the ball on the Patent Office.

The process in which information is disclosed to the Patent Office is by filing an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).  The IDS includes a list of all the prior art references that the Applicant believes are relevant to the invention, as defined by the claims in the patent application.  There is a lot of prior art out there, and the best that every Applicant can do is to disclose the prior art that they know about.

The big question is about the prior art that the Applicant discovers after filing the IDS.  Is all lost?  Has the Applicant now committed fraud on the Patent Office?  That depends on how this is handled.  If the Applicant does nothing about the prior art that is discovered, then the likelihood that the patent stands up to a challenge of validity is very, very slim.  In fact, if it can be shown that the Applicant later became aware of relevant prior art, and chose not to inform the Patent Office, it is almost a foregone conclusion that the patent will be found invalid.  Worse yet, the Applicant may be found to have engaged in inequitable conduct, which can lead to liability for attorneys’ fees.

So how does the Applicant avoid this?  By filing a supplemental IDS.  It is exactly what it sounds like.  It is another IDS that supplements the original.  This is simple enough, and a good way to ensure that the Applicant has fulfilled the duty of disclosure to the Patent Office.

The Patent Office Is Not Ready For The Java Update – Don’t Do It!

Friday, 11 November, 2011 09:58 Written by Mark Malek 5 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Consider the title of this article a very mild way of stating my frustration with the Patent Office.  Yesterday, as I was trying to file a simple document using the Patent Office’s Electronic System, I kept getting an authentication error when I was trying to log on.  I could not figure it out.  I know that my digital certificate is up to date and I know that I had the right password.  What in the world could possibly be wrong?

Maybe it was because I was using Google Chrome.  My paralegal that does most of the filing uses Internet Explorer.  That had to be the problem, right?  Mind you that I am no 20 minutes into this frustrating process, all to file a document that took me 4 minutes to draft!  So, I open up IE and try to log on.  Guess what?  Authentication error again.  Now the mild cursing begins (if you know me, you know that this is when spectators start giggling).  I know what to do, I’ll delete the digital certificate from my computer and ask my paralegal to email me another one.  You guessed it – that didn’t work either.  How frustrating do you think it is that someone is able to log onto the PTO Electronic Filing System using my digital certificate just 10 feet from me???

No problem – I’ll just call the PTO.  After navigating through about four operators and explaining the problem, I finally get a very helpful technician on the phone.  I explain the problem to her and her first reaction was the following: “Did you update Java?”  Well, not intentionally.  I do remember that when I got into the office on Wednesday, my computer was restarted and I received the indication that Windows had performed some updates.  That’s when it must have happened.  To my surprise, the technician explained to me that the PTO system was not compatible with the Java update and that I would have to uninstall the update, and reinstall an old version of Java.  Really?  The United States Patent Office?  The forefront of technology was not ready for the?

Here’s my single biggest gripe.  I receive an update from the PTO every couple of days via email.  It is some sort of breaking news, or some story about happenings within the PTO.  Would it have killed you to let me know about this problem that way?  How hard would it have been to send a quick email blast to every patent practioner out there about this issue?  I was humored when the technician told me that about 80% of the calls she received lately were for this very issue.  By the way, I had about 1 hour of my day into this disaster by that point.

As promised by the technician, uninstalling the update and reinstalling the old version of Java did the trick.  I can’t say that the Oracle site is the easiest thing that I have ever navigated, but, with a little help, I was able to find the old Java update 27 and install it.  I haven’t even told you the good part yet.  Once I got everything working, and once I was able to log onto the PTO Electronic Filing System, I was presented with a notice in big bold letters – something along the lines of “the Java update 29 is not compatible with the PTO Electronic Filing System.”  What the heck kind of government operation was this?  When I saw that notice, a string of profanity flowed from my mouth that was unmatched, even by the standards of Ralphie’s Dad from A Christmas Story. I sometimes refer to these types of meltdowns as an “Egyptian Conniption.”  Present me with a government issue like this again, and you are sure to witness it.

To my friends at Patently-O that posted a story about this issue today, I am here to confirm that it is an issue.  A little note to Director Kappos – I have been very pleased with all that has been accomplished by you as the PTO Director, but I can’t believe this one got by the IT folks at the PTO.

 

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 10464 access attempts in the last 7 days.