2

Nothing for you to worry about. The classification systems exist for two reasons. It is how the examining corp is organized. Examiners become experts in one or more related classes. Your examiner will be in an "art unit" that examines things from one or more related classes. Although you have the option to suggest a class/subclass when applying, ...


2

Proper classification is the responsibility of the USPTO, and not the applicant. Non-provisional applications are relatively often misclassified, and this is not something that can cause any challenge to the validity of a filing date or the enabling nature of the disclosure. It may cause less than adequate proficiency in examination, but that is another ...


2

DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, and is not to be relied upon for legal decisions. I am not attorney. Read the relevent laws yourself and consult with an attorney. Classification The classification noted on a patent application is only a suggestion to the USPTO made in good faith (i.e. you could get in trouble for intentionally trying to mislead/etc) - ...


2

I can't give you specific legal advice because I'm not a lawyer and because I do not know the specifics of the situation. Just because someone has a product does not mean it is patented. Foosball tables have been around for many, many years. Any original patents that might have existed are assuredly expired by now. This is one reason why there are so many ...


1

Your only need permission from someone else if they hold a patent that your device infringes upon. Merely being an accessory to something does not mean you need the permission of the maker of that something. However you would like to build a table that incorporates your device. Foosball is old enough that it is not too likely that there are patents covering ...


1

I believe George White's answer solves your question. Notwithstanding, please note that how patent documents are classified in terms of IPC/CPC classes is different in each patent office. At the EPO, the so-called Receiving Section attempts to establish what is the technical field of the invention so that a Search Division (actual examiners) draw up a search ...


1

Page 83 of the referenced documentation is helpful: The us-field-of-classification-search element will always be present. If the examiner did do a classification search, the element will contain one or more classification-national records and/or one us-classifications-ipcr record. If the examiner did not do a classification search, the element will ...


1

I Googled "tmclass harmonised" and selected this link which contains the following: The Harmonised Database contains more than 70 000 terms from which our users can select the goods and services for which they seek protection in their trade mark applications. This database is used in the European Union Intellectual Property Office's (EUIPO) online trade ...


1

Yes, examiners just try to do their best. Some practitioners deliberately obfuscate the field of their invention in hopes to get an Examiner that will be more friendly (inexperienced) to the technology. EDIT to address the concerns of questioner: Because the standard is a Person (singular) Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (singular), the USPTO chooses the ...


1

The requirement for a single statutory class is per claim. Many patents have machine claims, and one or more types of process claims. A method of building the machine, a method of using the machine, and a process carried out by the machine's internal operation are all process claims. "Machine" is a very broad term and would apply to your system regardless of ...


1

Please use Truncation for classification as you are not using complete classification. e.g. icl/c07$ AND icl/a61$


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible