2

My initial impression is that the tool is not at present very useful. The main issue I see is that previous queries seem to affect future queries. For instance look at this result: It is pretty clear that the first and second hit has nothing whatsoever to do with coffee makers. In fact it looks like it is ignoring the sample query altogether as none of the ...


2

The USPTO has a third-party issuance document submission process that was created by the AIA law. This was an important reason for Ask Patents to exist in its earlier days. During a defined window anyone can submit documents that the examiner is obliged to consider. It can be done anonymously, if you like. The window starts when the application is ...


2

To infringe on a patent you must implement each and every step in at least one claim. So, in the scenario provided, if a claim includes a specific material and you don't use that material, you don't infringe that claim. However, this doesn't necessarily mean you have freedom to operate. There may be other broader patents. For example, let's say you see a ...


2

As you describe it, the method would be a narrowing of the existing method but, due to added mechanism, would have broader use than the previous method. It is not really a generalization of the old method. There are similar cases where patents are awarded for someone finding a sweet spot in an already known method. Maybe at a certain temperature range a ...


2

To be patentable an invention needs to be useful, novel and non-obvious. It might be hard to convince a patent examiner of novelty and non-obviousness if you just tweak an existing device. Even if you do manage to get a patent on an invention that builds on prior art by adding steps, your patent would only be on the system including the added steps not on ...


2

One option targeted to the IT industry is Prior Art Archive. This article suggests it is being developed in concert with the USPTO. From their About page: Low quality patents waste money. US companies spend millions of dollars year after year in litigation expenses defending against patents that shouldn’t have been issued. The patent examination process ...


2

The original application must still be pending when the divisional application is filed and no new matter can be added. The purpose is to claim something already disclosed but not yet claimed.


1

No. First - you can't patent the same structure under a different theory of why you are doing it. Some claims (device, machine, system, apparatus, etc.) are to a thing. Your "new" thing is exactly the same, structurally as an old thing so this is 100% out. In the other example, if your antibodies are different antibodies then you have a different ...


1

There are a few cases to consider. You have developed an internal combustion engine and a hoist that uses the engine to lift ships from the water. Either or both might or might not be patentable. The hoist might be novel whether or not that particular engine is used in it. The engine might or might be obvious over previous internal combustion engines. If the ...


1

Or, you could clarify in the patent you are only claiming the GitHub model and not the Git model, even though the Git model is explained. This. You have to explain the basics for the derivative to be sufficiently discussed. Explicitly disclaiming them achieves your goal.


1

The publication date. Documents become prior art the day they are disclosed to the public, which in the case of international applications (PCT) and patent applications is whenever they become public. The way I understand your second question is that you filed another application (P1), and you want to claim priority from it in yet another application (P2). ...


1

To prevent others getting a patent, file a patent application, let it publish and then go abandoned. Since this came back up I have thought more about it. To win a case after a patent is issued or to have something date stamped to send in as a third party submission or, outside the U.S., as an objection or observation, these defensive publication sites can ...


1

As answered when this question was on LAW SE You can make any change you like between a provisional application and a non-provisional application. It is just that claims in the non-provisional that are not sufficiently supported in the non-provisional will not get the benefit of the earlier filing date. This is a claim-by-claim issue. Some may end up with ...


1

This is simple. You can't patent something that already exists and is publicly known. You can't patent anything you didn't invent either. The existence of a product in Japan is prior art for the rest of the world and would keep you or anyone else from obtaining a patent anywhere in the world. Second, there are no world wide patents. Patents are issued ...


1

As Eric mentioned in a comment, the issue is degree of disclosure. It can be a subtle issue. A publication that explained a result but did not show how to achieve the result would not be novelty breaking. If you think that might be your situation you can file an application and provide the USPTO with all of the information about the publication. Dates, ...


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