 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006U.S.-PTO: Proposal for Fast-Track-Examination.I just have learnt from the Patently-O Blog operated by Mr. Dennis Crouch on a new initiative of the U.S.-PTO to speed up patent examination in certain cases promising a 12 month final decision on patentability. To qualify, a patent applicant must:
The applicant will only be given one-month (non-expendable) to reply to any office action.For details, see
Well, studying the proposals one by one, I come to the following: File the application electronically with a petition to make special (with fees paid and appropriate declaration); That sounds a lot like PACE, in force at the EPO since a long while. Conduct a search of prior art; It is always helpful...however, does this mean that the USPTO is going to rely just on the prior art presented by the applicant? Good heavens... Submit all prior art that is closest to their invention; See above. Explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention id different; I always thought one was supposed to do that in the description, anyway. Explicitly discuss how the invention is useful and show how the written description supports the claimed invention; See above. Include only 20 claims (3 independent); Rule 29(2) EPC. Agree to have an interview with the Examiner; In my previous experience as an examiner, I learned that interviews were rarely very useful. Oral proceedings, on the other hand, are almost always decisive but time intensive and better avoided by all parties. Finally, this proposal will clearly discriminate in favour of applicants having attorneys in Washington DC and against all the rest. Agree to base claims of patentability only on the independent claims. Huh? I know our cousins over the pond are a bit special, but shouldn't that be always the case?!  Post a Comment
| ||||||||||||||||
