7

Practice differs across jurisdictions worldwide. The idea is the same behind all of them, but usually the tools to analyze enablement are different. I think patent attorneys don't like broad claims because they know it is tough to support them and the danger of having an invalid claim granted lures around. The applicant, unfortunately, is in most cases very ...


4

The USPTO tries to follow the law and the rules. To show a person skilled in the art how to make and use an invention doesn't mean you need to give them production blueprints - especially in the "predictable arts". Also, the implementation the inventor describes doesn't need to work particularly well. One way to think about it might be "is there more ...


3

The MPEP says reference characters are preferably numerical. Patent applications do not usually have "chapters" and there is no need to invent a convention like that. As mentioned, even numbers let you add a number later without worrying about re-numbering but renumbering would not be needed anyway. That is not true of drawings - they need to be in order. ...


3

Q. "Can it then be written up as a separate application?" A. Yes. Each of the two regular applications should claim priority to the provisional application which you have already filed. To do that, the regular applications must both be filed within one year of the provisional filing date. The inventors of the two regular applications are not necessarily ...


3

Not every feature of your claim needs to be novel It would be a very rare invention that consists entirely of a new thing with no previously existing components. Instead, an invention typically relates to a known thing with a bunch of known features, along with something new. As such, claims to inventions will typically include a bunch of components which ...


3

Copyrighted? Yes. Enforceable? Probably not. In the USA, the copyrighted nature of patents and applications for patents would, like anything else, initially depend upon when and how it was created and published. Prior to 1989 the publication was required to have a "proper copyright notice" or registration, but that is no longer the case. Works of ...


3

The markings do not apply to you if line spacing is the only change to your documents. Submitting the corrected documents and including a note to the examiner about no new matter should satisfy the request. See posting.


2

This answer is not intended to constitute advice (I'm an inventor, not a patent attorney;) but rather provide perspective, based on my recent software patent application, filed in 2016. In drafting the non-provisional, I engaged a patent attorney who specializes in my sub-field. The draft was reviewed by two advisory patent attorneys, one in tech and one ...


2

For UK patent and patent application specifications published on or after 1 August 1989, copyright remains with the applicant or proprietor (apparently regardless of who drafted the application). (Earlier UK patent and patent application specifications are Crown copyright.) You are allowed to copy a UK patent specification to disseminate the information in ...


2

The specification explains the invention with detail and with multiple embodiments and variations on those embodiments. It does not necessarily single out the novel aspects from the rest of the description. Claims define what you are claiming to be yours. The analogy used is of a prospector defining the boundaries of a mining claim. If somebody does ...


2

With apologies to the OP's narrow original question, given that questions involving distinct legal issues and non-US jurisdictions are being closed as duplicates, there are some points that I think need to be mentioned here. To summarize: given the lack of clear legal authority on copyright claims over patent materials in most countries, any blanket ...


1

I write a summary - if at all - like a normal person.


1

Explaining the new applications relationship to a previous application of yours is much more likely to hurt than help. It would be cited in the first sentence of the application as "The current application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. application XYZ, dated XYZ." Note - the term "prior art is very loaded. Prior Art == something they can use against a ...


1

The more complicated we make to understand drawings then there are high chances that even the examiner will get confused and issue an office action on it. The basic necessity of patent application is it should enable a person skilled in the art to understand. Using numbers than characters are preferable.


1

You don't introduce it again, unless you want to clutter your description with annoying repetitions. There are two main ways of doing this “right“ (and of course a bunch of variations). You can describe your invention as one example and describe the alternatives only per element. For example: a vehicle with a motor 1 and a windshield 2. In one ...


1

You are right! They are missing from my version too. You should contact the "office of publications" at the USPTO at www.uspto.gov. If the pages are missing from the electronic files, they were probably are missing from original official gazette paper publication. In that case, you would have to order a copy of the "file wrapper". This is a collection ...


1

No problem. In the spec. and drawings you need to tell and show everything you can think of about what it is and how it is used. The users of patented devices and people carrying out patented methods are often portrayed. People can also be mentioned in claims as long as they are not an element of the claim. If it is a method claim only actions are elements, ...


1

David, The answer to your question can vary by Examiner. Technically, anything not disclosed in the spec can be considered new matter and face a 112 rejection, but some examiners are more lenient than others. Without knowing the specifics of your disclosure and/or claim language your question is difficult to address, but if you are concerned that mixing ...


1

They can be very sensitive to anything added in the spec or drawings unless it is already presented in one place and you are also putting it somewhere else, it is a dictionary definition and if the word has more than one meaning the one you intended is already clear, it is an obvious error with an obvious fix, or it is "inherent". You might need an affidavit ...


1

I am not a US expert so I hope someone else will pop-in as well to add more info. But in a nutshell, there is a linkage between the date you disclose something and the disclosure itself and it is called "priority date". It seems that your attorney wants to ensure you get the maximum opportunities as possible and include this added feature to the PCT ...


1

Can I copy parts of applications that are not specific to the invention? Probably, but maybe not. The key issue comes down to whether your copying would infringe the original author's copyright. Whether the portion you copy relates to the technical implementation or relates more to the scope of the patent (what you call "lawyerspeak") is largely irrelevant ...


1

Many practitioners draft claims before drafting the specification. When you think about claiming you think broadly. If you start the specification first you are likely to start, and possibly end, with describing a specific embodiment. After the thought that goes into preliminary drafting of claims one is in a better position to generate a wider range of ...


1

Yes, they are, and are used like you have mentioned. The most direct answer to your question is in the MPEP (here): The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend ...


1

The specification, and not the original claims limit the available subject matter of amended claims. Therefore, new claims may be submitted as long as (per above) no new matter is introduced.


1

This is a design patent, so it's a patent that protects the appearance of this "peanut butter jar" with a tear-off strip in the middle. It doesn't protect a label that rips in the middle of the jar, because that's not what is illustrated. And what is protected is exactly what is shown in the figures.


1

Design Patent Claims:- ornamental design for a peanut butter jar. in my opinion It has something to do with opening of Jar with tear strip seal if it has been opened label will rip off. I tried to search inventor in Google but nothing extra ordinary came up.


1

Do not use the second format. That is the way the U.S. patent office formats it when they print it, not the way any patent office wants to get it from you. WIPO's format requirements are in the PCT Applicant's Guide. I am having trouble pasting in the URL but it comes up on a google search. It is written in a very bureaucratic manner.


1

In this framework example XYZ is a result. Results are not patentable but methods of achieving results can be patentable. Some claims are independent claims which means they stand alone and do not represent a narrowing of some other claim. Dependent claims refer back to a preceding claim that is then narrowed by adding more steps or more details to the ...


1

Especially in light of the fact that the inventor, if enablement is taken into account, must be in full possession of the exact recipe for at least one embodiment. Not necessarily. An example of the invention can be "prophetic", describing predicted results as opposed to something the inventor actually did. The case Gould v. Quigg was over a ...


1

George White has the key - because it all relates to 'a person skilled (or of ordinary skill) in the art' - the famed and elusive "POSITA." In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the field of the patent should be able to practice it without inventive steps. A new transmission design should be able to be designed without undue experimentation by an ...


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