Hot answers tagged

24

Yes, you can submit a YouTube Video as prior art as long as the YouTube video is publicly available. YouTube videos usually have the publication date under the video, such as "Uploaded by X on Oct 17, 2011". If you provide a hard copy of the video itself, it be hard to prove that the video was public or its publication date, especially if the public version ...


23

I don't think there is a direct answer available. Your circumstances actually pose a generic strategy question for someone with an idea for something new. As I have written in answer to other questions, the underlying issue is net present value of the idea/invention. How do you capture, and then accelerate, that value? You are confronted with compound ...


20

As others have pointed out, a youtube video could be prior art, in the sense that a video recording is eligible subject matter. Prosecution is sometimes ex parte, as in the case of a non-published patent application. This means that the office actions (rejections etc) from the USPTO to the applicant are sent only to the applicant, and not made public. So, ...


14

I am not aware of a definitive answer to your question either in the statutes or in case law, but I can set out likely parameters for making such a determination. The following excerpt from 35 USC section 102 most directly addresses the issues relevant to your question: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (a) the invention was known or used by ...


10

A quick google search for warehouse management systems with logic for tracking expiration dates brought back this system. While it's not a pantry system and is in fact intended for much larger operations, it does track products and locations, includes "Tracking for Expiration Dated Food", and is mobile. I've never used it so I can't attest to the truth in ...


9

I have a few suggestions: the USPTO is helping local non-profits set up pro bono patent help. (pro-se and pro bono at USPTO) The first one up and running is in Minneapolis but others are getting on line. Second there may be an inventors club in your area and there may be members who are patent agents or patent attorneys who can provide some advice on DIY ...


9

Well, all evidences might be taken into consideration. To be a prior art, evidence must be public and need to have a date and comprise one or more subject matter, which is claimed in new invention. But, like other evidences in the internet, video can be deleted from youtube and there will be a problem to prove that 1 year ago youtube (or any other public ...


9

Under the law, prior art must fit within one of the categories defined in 35 U.S.C. 102. The most likely categories for a youtube video are (1) a "printed publication" or (2) evidence of the invention being "known ... by others in this country." There is at least one case holding that a video is NOT a printed publication. Diomed, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc....


6

The "willfully blind" passage that you quote from paragraph 17 is in the "Background Facts" section of the complaint. It does not state the basis for the lawsuit - though it is possible that they are setting up an argument of willful infringement. Paragraph 22 of 3D Systems' complaint reads as follows: "Upon information and belief, Formlabs' Form 1 3D ...


6

I have seen a YouTube video cited as prior art in an Office action, and a claim rejection was based in part on the YouTube video. So yes, YouTube videos can be prior art. In the Office action, the Examiner provided a screenshot of the video as well as its URL.


6

From my experience as a software developer I don't see how something like agile can be patented and if it was patented how that could be enforced. Any money you would make from that would likely be more in the form of selling publications and certifications. So that falls more in the copyright and trademark arenas.


4

The Bilski decision is probably the one most relevant to this question. Unfortunately, the answer is that nobody really knows. In the Bilski decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that to qualify as a patentable method (rather than an unpatentable abstract idea), the invention had to involve either a specific machine, or a ...


4

Basically, Patent Prosecution Highway is a fast track examination of patent applications. It provides a faster process to have a patent application considered by the patent office. The patent application can be prosecuted under PPH only when the applicantion receives a notice from one patent office that at least one of the claims is patentable or allowable. ...


4

The general standard one has to meet for filing any kind of factual assertion with a U.S. District Court is set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3): (b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or ...


4

Note: I'm a USA practitioner, so what I say goes for the USPTO. There isn't a strict definition about what constitutes an "Office action". As generally used, the term generally encompasses any mailing from a patent examiner; it usually excludes decisions on petitions, communications from the Office of Patent Application Processing (the people who handle ...


4

In the U.S. the term Office Action is typically used to describe a notice a patent applicant receives from a patent examiner, informing the applicant that the examiner has decided to reject some or all of the claims in an application and explaining the reasons why (e.g. a claim A is anticipated by reference X, claim b is obvious in view of references X and Y,...


4

For your second question: No. Now to the first one, as this is harder. If the claims state something similar to after adding two to two we get 4 but 4 is sufficiently close to 77 so whatever or we add 2 and 2 and procede, then this should not in any way forbid you to use your invention. BUT: And this is actually what you asked: Are patent claims valid ...


3

According to the EPO website, this patent application has been published and is pending examination. https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?number=EP11735182 Since it looks like priorty is claimed to a US filing, a search on the US Patent Office website seems to confirm that a US patent has not issued for this application.


3

Yes, it can. I did a quick search and found over 100 patents with a youtube.com prior art citation. The earliest citations I found are in US 7783710, US 7844507, and US 7934725.


3

An alternative not yet mentioned is to consult with your university's tech transfer office. You should do so under confidentiality agreement or otherwise ensure that they will keep any disclosure confidential so it does not count as prior art against you. Many professors are in the same situation as you-they have a potentially patentable invention but no ...


3

I highly recommend not using the USPTO's search site. Google patents is easier to use, more forgiving of poor search strings, now has patents and patent applications from China, Europe and WIPO, and provides access to information besides the patent itself, including assignment history. The search you did might have found something if you didn't have the "....


3

Assumption: A technology based patent application will be submitted to United States Patent and Trademark office (USPTO). You need first investigate prior art. Essentially you have to validate if your invention is truly an invention. There few ways you can achieve this task. Literature search - start with simple google search Make sure you have clearly ...


3

Would someone be able to patent a process in which the outcome may be the same as an already patented process? Yes, as long as the new method was novel and non-obvious. In this case, your patent would be limited to the process, and not the product itself (since the product is not novel). Example Assume there is a prior art patent, with claims: ...


3

Thanks for all the comments. Answering my own question. I first called the number of the Pre-Grant Publication Division at (703)605-4283 according to the SB/36 form, but that number turned out already invalidated. I then called the Application Assistance Unit (AAU) at 571-272-4000. After waiting for more than one hour, I finally reached to someone and they ...


2

Since the US application is the national phase of a PCT application, the specification of the PCT application is the specification of the US application. The poor English translation is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the content set forth in the original PCT application should be the content that is represented in the US national phase application. ...


2

these types of things would most likely not be patentable under 101. the law and judicial exceptions to 101 are rather complex (and nonsensical at times) but in general, a good rule of thumb is that an "abstract" process isn't patentable. often, in practice the patent office will not issue patents that can be done "solely" in a persons mind. that being ...


2

In general only communications from the Examiner or Examining Division which raise objections to the patentability of the claims that are pending are called Office Actions. Be aware that this is not an official term. The official term differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may be called 'Communication pursuant to Art. 94(3)' [EPO], 'Notice of ...


2

A specific, applied method like that you describe is, in principle, patentable under section 101. The real question is whether it meets the other standards for patentability, as other answers have noted. Is is truly novel and nonobvious? Can you describe it an an application-specific way? If the answers to this are yes, then you have a shot.


2

Without specifics, it's hard to give an absolute answer. For instance, "A System for Tracking Expiration and Stock of Pantry Items" would likely have quite a bit of prior art (and perhaps a degree of obviousness). However, if there's something unique about the process that you can describe, it may be patentable.


2

Once your patent application is under a final rejection, your options are limited. There are several other options for specific cases, but here are the 3 main ones: 1. You can give up trying for a patent and allow your application to go abandoned. 2. You can appeal the final rejection to the Board. 3. You can file an RCE, amend the claims, and take another ...


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