Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The information submitted in an IDS typically includes other issued patents, published patent applications, scientific journal articles, books, magazine articles, or any other published material that is relevant to the invention disclosed in the applicant's own patent application, irrespective of the country or language in which the published material was made.
In former United States patent law, a statutory invention registration (SIR) was a publication of an invention by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). [1] The publication was made at the request of the applicant (i.e. inventor(s) or assignee(s)). [2]
The small entity status allows small businesses, independent inventors, nonprofit organizations to file a patent application and maintain an issued patent for a reduced fee—a 60% reduction. [1] Under 13 C.F.R. § 121.802(a), an entity qualifies as a "small business concern", and so qualifies for small entity status, if its number of employees ...
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) is published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for use by patent attorneys and agents and patent examiners. It describes all of the laws and regulations that must be followed in the examination of U.S. patent applications , and articulates their application to an enormous ...
If the requirements for the award of a filing date are not met, the patent office notifies the applicant of the deficiencies. Depending upon the law of the patent office in question, correction may be possible without moving the filing date, or the application may be awarded a filing date adjusted to the date on which the requirements are ...
In United States patent law, an Office action is a document written by a patent examiner in response to a patent application after the examiner has examined the application. [4] [5] The Office action cites prior art and gives reasons why the examiner has allowed, or approved, the applicant's claims, and/or rejected the claims.
Many American patent practitioners believe, that the broad discretion given to the USPTO and the lack of judicial review on the issues of unity of invention, allow patent examiners to cynically "issue knee-jerk restriction requirements due to incentives at the USPTO to increase revenue or for examiners to perform less work for the same credit."
(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an ...