4

Do not put this person's name on the patent as an inventor! And please do not treat their advice as gospel. First, they are breaking the rules by providing advice to you about your filing. It is practicing law without a license. Next, the examiner is correct that all inventors need to qualify as micro entity applicants. From the form GROSS INCOME LIMIT ...


2

No limit and in fact you are to list every inventor. However, the definition of an "inventor" often imposes a natural limit. That is, an inventor must contribute to the conception of an idea reflected in the claims. Thus, it generally follows that the number of persons contributing to conceiving an invention does not reach hundreds or thousands. More details ...


2

Under the AIA law of 2012 wrong inventorship can be corrected without regard to deceptive intent. No longer a reason to tear up a patent.


1

NO That is not proper at all. In the U.S.someone who is not a true inventor needed to sign the paperwork declaring that they were a true inventor for the filing. The form says fraudulent signing is punishable by fine or imprisonment. One approach would be try to get them to assign the patent to your company along with a change in inventor to the actual ...


1

I can't determine whether or not you should be listed as an inventor based on your description of your activities. The criteria for inventorship is not at all based on how much effort and time you put into the project. The criteria is based on whether you were responsible for the inventive element that is captured in a claim. To give an example, let's assume ...


1

The patent office will only communicate with one party. In this case it would be the attorney/agent with the power of attorney. In the case of multiple inventors they can designate one if them to speak for all. I’m sure you can see the reason they need to only deal with a single party.


1

There was a famous case regarding putting an eraser at the end of a pencil. It was granted a patent by the USPTO but disallowed by the Supreme Court in the 1800's. The eraser didn't do anything different becasue it was attached to a pencil and the pencil didn't do anything different becasue it was attached to an eraser. We do not use the term synergy in ...


1

It isn’t moot - it would be positively improper to add them. In the U.S. an inventor is someone who makes a conceptual contribution to something in a claim. Someone might be an inventor in a divisional but not the parent application, for example, if the they contributed conceptually to something claimed in the divisional, not the parent.


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