j*****g 发帖数: 44 | 1 背景介绍:
薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作
Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用
133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司
contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。
找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑
contribution,贴出来给大家看看:
This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show
that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major
significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
it is just that - an application. Until approved and others begin to utilize
it, it does not help meet the language here of "major contribution”.
Second; the citation number is impressive but not indicative of a major
contribution. USCIS does not see multiple people making substantial use of
the petitioner's work. The letters show that some in the field think highly
of the petitioner, but without being supplemented by independent and
objective evidences, do little to help meet this criterion. A couple of
notes here: Dr. XXX states that the petitioner developed drugs that “...
perform much better in killing pancreatic cancer cells than the current
drugs..." This sounds significant and perhaps major. However, USCIS would
need letters from doctors and/or scientists that are now using these drugs
of the petitioner. Finally. the recognition in the media is not "about" the
petitioner, and though the petitioner’s supervisor points out his valuable
contributions, the supervisor does not say that this recognition was for the
petitioner's work. From the evidence and his letter, it appears to be
recognition of Dr. XXX and the entire lab/team.
To assist in determining whether the beneficiary's contributions are
original and of major significance in the field, the petitioner may submit:
Objective documentary evidence of significance of the beneficiary's
contribution to the field.
Evidence that the beneficiary's major significant contributions has provoked
widespread public commentary in the field or has been widely cited.
Evidence of the beneficiary's work being implemented by others. Possible
evidence may include but is not limited to:
Contracts with companies using the beneficiary's products;
Licensed technology being used by others;
Patents currently being utilized and shown to be significant to the field.
自己分析主要说了三点:一说我patent只是application,直接忽视已被公司买断事实
;二说citation和RL不能证明别人用我成果,特举例说RL1说我的药好不算数要doctor/
scientist用了说好才行,他哪知一个药从bench 到bedside要10-20年啊,我的药还在
实验室研发阶段呢;三说media report没有recognize 我的contribution,都是说我老
板的,还说我老板推荐信看不出我的contribution,这篇Nature是team effort,无语
了,一作都不算contribution啥算,哪篇paper不是team effort更何况药物开发这种系
统工程。顺便骂一句变态老板开press release连我名字都不提。
请大家支招,多谢。 |
c******a 发帖数: 2215 | 2 bless.
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
k***a 发帖数: 1199 | 3 找大蜜看看
show
utilize
highly
the
valuable
the
provoked
doctor/
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
y******u 发帖数: 1123 | 4 看来media真得慎用,bless早过
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
c****x 发帖数: 367 | 5 看了你的背景,比好多EB1a通过的都强,还是觉得你尽快和你的律师好好谈谈,看来是
Petition letter和推荐信的问题。你NATURE都发了,还说你的贡献不够,有点儿过分
,看来是亮点没有挖掘出来!好好准备你的RESPONSE吧!
BIG BLESS YOU! |
v******X 发帖数: 500 | 6 这么强都RFE。。。
咨询大蜜吧。感觉楼主这条件系统组织材料对付0444应该不难。
Bless!
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
v******6 发帖数: 7081 | |
j***a 发帖数: 1734 | 8 肯定是推荐信没写好,同意楼上,赶紧找大蜜重新准备推荐信,这么强的背景好好准备
rfe材料肯定会过的,big bless! |
t*********r 发帖数: 4143 | |
F***m 发帖数: 2284 | |
|
|
b*******i 发帖数: 1905 | |
g********l 发帖数: 46 | 12 你这个很好弄,自己弄就好,我当时也是被0444rfe
1. 重新summarize your PL, 最好来个point to point response
2. 找引用你文章的人写推荐信,直接说由于你的结果,她们才能继续project,发文章
3. 找老板写信证明你的contribution大于90%
good luck |
c********3 发帖数: 4531 | |
w*****2 发帖数: 3093 | |
j*****g 发帖数: 44 | 15 已经找大蜜了
谢各位的建议
老板比较mean,写得推荐信不是非常enthuastic
【在 j***a 的大作中提到】 : 肯定是推荐信没写好,同意楼上,赶紧找大蜜重新准备推荐信,这么强的背景好好准备 : rfe材料肯定会过的,big bless!
|
y****7 发帖数: 154 | 16 很强的case 都RFE,只能说你找的律师很水 |
j*********i 发帖数: 136 | |
X**********0 发帖数: 77 | 18 Bless, background will strong, no worry at all. |
w********d 发帖数: 225 | |
c*******n 发帖数: 311 | 20 BLESS!真牛人,不怕怕!Response后必过! |
|
|
p********r 发帖数: 3243 | 21 和我一个阿姨哦。
我只能说:撸主的驴屎和撸主的背景一样,真是太太太强大了!! |
S********i 发帖数: 1133 | |
R*R 发帖数: 2661 | |
z*****a 发帖数: 7716 | 24 bless!
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
l*****o 发帖数: 473 | 25 Very helpful to post the rejection from officer.
Thanks very much. |
b****c 发帖数: 189 | 26 这么强的背景还被RFE只能说楼主运气不好,找过大蜜就好
祝早绿! |
i****n 发帖数: 627 | |
p********r 发帖数: 3243 | 28 躺过的案子,哪家驴屎啊??
我要有这条件,睡觉都能笑醒啊!
羡慕。 |
l***s 发帖数: 115 | |
m******g 发帖数: 3924 | |
|
|
A*********a 发帖数: 300 | |
p********r 发帖数: 3243 | 32 有驴屎,没天理。
【在 l***s 的大作中提到】 : 这么强也会ref. 没有天理了.
|
s******T 发帖数: 177 | |
j*****g 发帖数: 44 | 34 用的是版上很多人推荐过的律师,周围不少人也用过,现在没法judge,可能就是点背
到家了
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
p********r 发帖数: 3243 | 35 你这么强的背景,还给驴屎送钱。
说啥好呢?
不是点背到家了,是懒到家了呵呵(我也是,功课没作足) |
H*******r 发帖数: 3143 | 36 BLESS
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
t***a 发帖数: 205 | 37 说几点个人看法,针对contributions。而且下面你的火力应该主攻:引用你文章的人
是怎么把你的work应用到他们的work上,怎么影响到他们的;而且至少举出两个影响到
别人的例子,这才是contributions。IO其实说的很明显了:
USCIS does not see multiple people making substantial use of the petitioner'
s work.
1.patent没有商业化和工业应用的不要提,何况你的patent都还在pending。
2.引用数确实不能直接等于重大贡献,如果引用不是特别高提这个很容易被质疑。你还
是得挖每条引用,找你对别人工作的影响。
3.你RL中每一个大论点都必须跟一个以上强有力的证据。比如有个推荐人说“perform
much better in killing...”,这个只是推荐人的空口的论断,得有证据支持,否则
如果你总citation不高,IO想挂你,肯定就会在这里质疑。你得让他在这句话之后跟个
"for example, in my/someone's paper, Dr.xxx's work was highly regarded as ..
.",文章上这样说就是硬证据。这只是一个证据,再来一个推荐人或者第三者的例子来
证明就无懈可击了。
IO提的需要找doctor来证明药效的要求是合理的,应为你如果不能证明(不管是从医生
还是从别的文章引用你的工作来证明)那就最好不要让推荐人下perform much better
in killing这样的结论。这是写推荐信避免被RFE的核心思想。
4.媒体报道如果没提你的名字就不要轻易claim。
5.你的nature如果有引用就好了,即使现在有引用你也可能不能再response里提了,因
为这是filing date之后发生的事情。刚发表的文章基本没有用,因为IO根本不在乎你
做了什么工作(哪怕发在nature上),他们只在乎你的工作在发表之后的意义,也就是
对别人有没有产生影响,how it effects?所以怎样对这篇文章做功课你需要和大蜜咨
询,是不是可以把审稿人的意见放上去证明它的重大意义?虽然是匿名的,但可以和主
编要个证明表面审稿人都是顶尖专家
6.不过你还是不用太担心。你的引用不错,而且刚发了nature,他也知道你deserve a
pass。只是你自己犯了一些低级失误,他惩罚一下,只要你认真回复,在关键点上给力
,他还是会放你过的。
show
【在 j*****g 的大作中提到】 : 背景介绍: : 薄后三年,方向抗癌药研发,9篇paper,6篇一作,1篇二作,2篇三作。一篇一作 : Nature刚发不久,无引用,有两个editorial highlight和若干media report。总引用 : 133次,未区分自引他引。Review共33次9个期刊。Patent一个pending中,但已被公司 : contract。独立推荐信3封,另两封一个合作者一个现在老板。 : 找的律师,claim老三样,直接pp,01/05/15 RD,01/08/15 RFE,落到0444手里,质疑 : contribution,贴出来给大家看看: : This criterion has not been met because the evidence submitted does not show : that the beneficiary's contributions are considered to be of major : significance in the field of endeavor. First, with the patent application,
|
j*****g 发帖数: 44 | 38 十分感谢楼上的回复
petitioner'
perform
【在 t***a 的大作中提到】 : 说几点个人看法,针对contributions。而且下面你的火力应该主攻:引用你文章的人 : 是怎么把你的work应用到他们的work上,怎么影响到他们的;而且至少举出两个影响到 : 别人的例子,这才是contributions。IO其实说的很明显了: : USCIS does not see multiple people making substantial use of the petitioner' : s work. : 1.patent没有商业化和工业应用的不要提,何况你的patent都还在pending。 : 2.引用数确实不能直接等于重大贡献,如果引用不是特别高提这个很容易被质疑。你还 : 是得挖每条引用,找你对别人工作的影响。 : 3.你RL中每一个大论点都必须跟一个以上强有力的证据。比如有个推荐人说“perform : much better in killing...”,这个只是推荐人的空口的论断,得有证据支持,否则
|