g****y
发帖数: 489 | 1 在学校的时候发过一个专利，因为律师不够负责，几年前放弃了(failed to response
to office action and then abandoned)。最近想把这件事再捡起来，可能让原来的申
请再复活吗？ |
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 2 no. but you can file another one if you have non-obvious improvement over the previous application. |
g****y
发帖数: 489 | 3 The new application needs to start all over? Can I claim the priority date
of the previous one? But doesn't a new application require some
distinguishable difference from the previous application? Then what's the
reason for "non-obvious"?
Do I need to get a patent attorney to submit the application? I think they
normally charge $10-20K for filing.
Thank you for the help!
the previous application.
【在 d********e 的大作中提到】
: no. but you can file another one if you have non-obvious improvement over the previous application.
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 4 priority claim depends on when your previous application was filed/published
... if the previous application qualifies as prior art, your new
application should be non-obvious.
you do not need a patent attorney/agent if you are confident you can handle
the prosecution yourself. you can take a look at the website in my signature
. it's not as expensive as you think. |
i****y
发帖数: 5184 | 5 revive需要很充足的理由证明没有想放弃，恐怕你的case很难。都几年了。。。
response
----------------------------------------
律师再不负责，也无权放弃你的专利啊。
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: 在学校的时候发过一个专利，因为律师不够负责，几年前放弃了(failed to response
: to office action and then abandoned)。最近想把这件事再捡起来，可能让原来的申
: 请再复活吗？
|
i****y
发帖数: 5184 | 6
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: The new application needs to start all over? Can I claim the priority date
: of the previous one? But doesn't a new application require some
: distinguishable difference from the previous application? Then what's the
: reason for "non-obvious"?
: Do I need to get a patent attorney to submit the application? I think they
: normally charge $10-20K for filing.
: Thank you for the help!
:
: the previous application.
|
g****y
发帖数: 489 | 7 The old application was published. Is it a good idea to use it as prior art?
I still don't understand what you meant by "non-obvious". The new
application will be based on the old application, and adding a few new
features/claims. Is that "non-obvious"? There will be new diagrams and
paragraphs to describe the new features, how to make it "non-obvious"?
Thanks for the link. I can write up most of the contents by myself and use
some of the contents from the old application, but don't think I'm familiar
with any prosecution procedures. In Option 1 on the website, that is what
filing the application is about?
Thanks!
published
handle
signature
【在 d********e 的大作中提到】
: priority claim depends on when your previous application was filed/published
: ... if the previous application qualifies as prior art, your new
: application should be non-obvious.
: you do not need a patent attorney/agent if you are confident you can handle
: the prosecution yourself. you can take a look at the website in my signature
: . it's not as expensive as you think.
|
g****y
发帖数: 489 | 8 我问的是：新的专利难道不是要和旧的有一些区别吗？那“不明显”是什么意思？
【在 i****y 的大作中提到】
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 9 You do not choose what is used as prior art by the USPTO. USPTO choose what
prior art they want to use AGAINST your application.
When was the old application published?
If the old application qualifies as prior art, your new application must
have some difference from your old application, and the difference must NOT
be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Sorry, I can't show you how to make your particular case "non-obvious"
without taking you in as a client.
Regarding the website, please write an email to them directly. I don't work
there.
art?
familiar
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: The old application was published. Is it a good idea to use it as prior art?
: I still don't understand what you meant by "non-obvious". The new
: application will be based on the old application, and adding a few new
: features/claims. Is that "non-obvious"? There will be new diagrams and
: paragraphs to describe the new features, how to make it "non-obvious"?
: Thanks for the link. I can write up most of the contents by myself and use
: some of the contents from the old application, but don't think I'm familiar
: with any prosecution procedures. In Option 1 on the website, that is what
: filing the application is about?
: Thanks!
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 10 ironny前辈很忙的。这个问题我替她回答吧。
区别不一定是“不明显”的。比如你的旧发明是一件有一个扣子的衣服，你的新发明是
一件有两个扣子的衣服。这种区别很可能会被专利局认为obvious。
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: 我问的是：新的专利难道不是要和旧的有一些区别吗？那“不明显”是什么意思？
|
g****y
发帖数: 489 | 11 The old application was published a few years ago (before the abandonment). If I remember correctly, for anything published more than 1 year old, it became public knowledge therefore can not be claimed in a patent application.
Sorry I'm still confused. If USPTO uses the old application as prior art to reject the claims in my new application, that means those new claims are too close to what's already in the old application. In this case, I should make the claims in the new application "obviously" different from my old application, no?
Or are you referring to the scenario where my new application claims the priority date of the old application? In this case, the new application needs to show "non-obvious" improvements so that the two applications can be related. Otherwise the new application will be treated as a separate patent and can not claim the priority date of the old application.
I don't mean to get into the details. Just want to get all the facts straight to help me decide what to do next. Thank you for your input!
what
NOT
work
【在 d********e 的大作中提到】
: You do not choose what is used as prior art by the USPTO. USPTO choose what
: prior art they want to use AGAINST your application.
: When was the old application published?
: If the old application qualifies as prior art, your new application must
: have some difference from your old application, and the difference must NOT
: be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
: Sorry, I can't show you how to make your particular case "non-obvious"
: without taking you in as a client.
: Regarding the website, please write an email to them directly. I don't work
: there.
|
d********e
发帖数: 2221 | 12 anything published more than 1 year ago can be used as prior art under 35
usc 102(b). You cannot claim priority at this moment. It's too late.
If the USPTO cite the old application, that means they think the new claims
are anticipated or rendered obvious by the old application. you can
certainly argue otherwise. you should make the **difference** between the
new claims and the old application **non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art**. That means,one of ordinary skill in the art should not consider
your new claims obvious in view of the old application.
the only feasible option now is to file a new application.
to reject the claims in my new application, that means those new claims are
too close to what's already in the old application. In this case, I should
make the claims in the new application "obviously" different from my old
application, no?
. If I remember correctly, for anything published more than 1 year old, it
became public knowledge therefore can not be claimed in a patent application.
to reject the claims in my new application, that means those new claims are
too close to what's already in the old application. In this case, I should
make the claims in the new application "obviously" different from my old
application, no?
priority date of the old application? In this case, the new application
needs to show "non-obvious" improvements so that the two applications can be
related. Otherwise the new application will be treated as a separate patent
and can not claim the priority date of the old application.
straight to help me decide what to do next. Thank you for your input! |
g******s
发帖数: 733 | 13 “不明显”是指对技术人员来说不是显而易见的改进。
就是说改进是经过你的努力才能获得的改进。
更通俗一点，这个改进是significant的。
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: 我问的是：新的专利难道不是要和旧的有一些区别吗？那“不明显”是什么意思？
|
g******s
发帖数: 733 | 14 请问各位，这个可以要求律师赔偿吗？
response
【在 g****y 的大作中提到】
: 在学校的时候发过一个专利，因为律师不够负责，几年前放弃了(failed to response
: to office action and then abandoned)。最近想把这件事再捡起来，可能让原来的申
: 请再复活吗？
|
