Hot answers tagged

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 ...


4

A U.S. answer. Some things in the field you describe are patentable in the U.S. and some are not. Unfortunately, above novelty and non-obviousness, the current huge hurdle is abstractness. The law on this in the U.S. has changed in the last few years in the direction of making it much easier to shoot down something as abstract. The broader range of processes ...


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 ...


3

My answer refers to European patent practice. Most probably you will not be able to get a patent granted for the method/algorithm if you do not refer it to a particular industrial application. Without claiming the different steps of the industrial procedure, the steps of your method/algorithm will be considered a mathematical method or a computer program as ...


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

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

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

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

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 ...


2

The short version is they do a search through databases starting with patent databases. They aren't specifically looking for previous patents. If your claimed invention is already described in a patent, a patent application, a journal article, or anywhere else you shouldn't be able to get a patent. Searching is a art. It is done by text searching and by ...


2

This is a challenging question due to some recent court cases, in particular the Alice decision (Supreme Court decision) (Wikipedia Article). Both of these are highly recommended reading prior to writing a new application in this space, because the Alice decision created a new legal test for patentability for business methods, based on a test of abstraction. ...


2

Any claim that covers embodiments rendered obvious by the description of the previous patent is invalid. At first glance it appears that the newer patent adds a lot of constraints to the structure; these additional constraints might not be obvious even if the purpose of the invention is the same. Just because a car has already been patented doesn't mean ...


2

A method of teaching is likely to be rejected as unpatentable under §101 (commonly used to reject software and business methods, but it seems like teaching would be treated similarly). @EricShain is likely correct: copyright will probably be more useful to you. "Section 101" is part of US patent law, officially numbered 35 U.S.C. §101. It says: Whoever ...


2

It depends. Phrasing this as if your invention were a thing, most patent claims are made of of existing "parts". How the parts are arranged and coupled relative to each other to function is usually what makes something novel and non-obvious. This is also true for a process. You could have an obvious arrangement of old steps or you could have a non-obvious ...


2

You question is a bit confusing, but I'll try to answer my interpretation. If you make an improvement to an existing patented device, you could potentially obtain a patent on the improvement, but if the existing patent has yet to expire, you can not produce the product without obtaining a license (assuming your product is covered by its claims). For any ...


2

It depends on what kind of operational workflow you want to be patented. In short, a workflow/process/method is patentable, if it has a tangible / measurable result, like a pizza recipe (take a dough, make it flat, put specific ingredient on it, heat it up to 180°C for 20-40 minutes). In general, European patents shall be granted for an invention, in all ...


1

Your basic assumptions is flat wrong in any realistic case. Yes, in the case of joint inventors they have separate ability to practice and license the invention with no need to coordinate or transfer money between them. Not a practical commercial situation, but that is the law. However, the joint inventorship rules can be overcome by a contract between the ...


1

As you describe it, this would be a patentable invention. A surprising critical range that makes a unsuspected huge difference is classic. However it is complicated by principles like "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," ...


1

I am not a lawyer, but I have 30 years of working in industry and quite a few patents all of which are the property of my employers. I don't think you can get a definitive answer on this site as each company may have its own employment policies. In general, the rule of thumb is if you are being paid for the work, the work product (which includes inventions) ...


1

No and none. And mailing something to yourself was never worth anything. Under the previous U.S. patent law (anything filed before that portion of the AIA took effect in March 16, 2013), one could win a dispute with someone who filed earlier than you filed by showing you conceived of the invention before the other person and diligently went about reducing ...


1

There are a couple of things to understand here: A patent is kind of an exchange between the public and the inventor. The basic legal theory is the inventor agrees to share their very special knowledge with the public (as soon as possible) in exchange for a the public granting a limited 20-year exclusive right to use, market, and sell products and services ...


1

There are no "addendum" to a patent application. You have a couple of options. One is to file a provisional and later file a non-provisional that could be a CIP (Continuation in Part) to the current application, also getting priority from the non-provisional, or could just be a new non-provisional.


1

Most patents from 40 years ago will be expired now. But there are three points which might still forbid the usage of the process: Newer patents on improvements - there could still be patents for parts of the method patented later. If every part of it was known exactly like it is now 40 years ago, this is unlikly, if not, it's entirely possible. 40 years ago ...


1

This does vary from state-to-state. I believe that in most states the invention "belongs" to the employer if you signed that away when first hired or if you were hired to invent or assigned to come up with this particular thing. Even in cases where there is no agreement and you were not hired to invent, if you did it on the company's time and/or equipment, ...


1

Sheraz, patents are geographic in nature. So, a US patent, for example, only provides the owner with exclusionary rights in the US. I recommend you get in contact with a local patent attorney to discuss. Many patents have been issued for gestures in the context of touchscreens, trackpads and the like. See ==> http://io9.com/10-physical-gestures-that-have-...


1

You do not need to prove the concept by documenting experiments unless it involves biology or possibly chemistry. You do to have the solution in hand, requiring no further invention. But it can all be on paper. A patent application, to have any real value, needs to show that you are "in possession of the invention", and needs to "teach someone skilled in ...


1

The default case for a U.S. patent application is to be published 18 months from the earliest claimed priority date. That might be 18 months from filing. In the case the priority document was a provisional application and a non-provisonal application is filed just before the 12 month point, the publication will be 18 months from the provisional filing or 6 ...


1

USPTO published a document related to America Invent Act (AIA) implementation where it categorized a YouTube video to “qualify as a Printed Publication under AIA and pre-AIA laws.” (Page 15 of ‘First Inventor to File (FITF) Comprehensive Training: Prior Art Under the AIA‘) AIA adds a new provision to 35 USC 102(a)(1) in the form of “Otherwise available to ...


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