Patents | Tucker Law

Requirements for Obtaining a Patent Under 35 U.S.C. 101
Gallery
Requirements for Obtaining a Patent Under 35 U.S.C. 101

Patents

Requirements for Obtaining a Patent Under 35 U.S.C. 101

In order for your application to be granted, a number of conditions must be satisfied, which can make the process of getting a patent for your innovation or discovery complicated. Your innovation must adhere to the standards outlined in 35 U.S.C. 101, which is one of the most crucial of these requirements. Only "any new and useful technique, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof" may be the subject of a patent under this section of the patent code. Four major conditions are imposed on patent applications by 35 U.S.C. 101. First, as the statute forbids multiple patenting, the applicant cannot already be in possession of a patent for the identical invention. Second, the right inventorship must be mentioned together with the name(s) of the inventor(s) in the application. Third, the claimed invention must fit into one of the four statutory categories listed in 35 U.S.C. 101 and be eligible for patenting. Fourth, the claimed invention cannot be based on anything that cannot be patented, such as abstract concepts, natural laws, or phenomena. An invention must be fresh in order to qualify for a patent, which means that it cannot have been fully and totally disclosed to the public before the patent application. According to MPEP 2104.01, "a claimed invention must be innovative and nonobvious over the prior art, which refers to all previous work that is publically accessible," a claimed invention "must be novel and nonobvious over the prior art." The invention must also be helpful, which entails having utility or practical applications. MPEP 2107 has a description of these needs. When an innovation is "anticipated" by prior art, it means that it has already been explained or [...]

By Matthew Sean Tucker|2023-02-04T20:25:00-05:00February 15th, 2023|Patents|Comments Off

Understanding USPTO Patent Internet Usage Policy
Gallery
Understanding USPTO Patent Internet Usage Policy

Patents

Understanding USPTO Patent Internet Usage Policy

To guarantee that the use of the Internet by patent examiners and other USPTO entities is effective, secure, and compliant with confidentiality standards, the USPTO has established an Internet Usage Policy. The policy describes how to access information about patent applications over the Internet for searching, browsing, and retrieval purposes. Internet searches for unpublished applications are prohibited unless they are restricted to the general state of the art and are written to preserve proprietary intellectual property, according to the regulation. Examiners are not permitted to solicit help for the patent examination on social media platforms. However, the policy permits examiners to look up information about published applications, including reissue applications and reexamination proceedings, online. The search terms that the examiners use can be anything, including terms that describe the general state of the relevant technology, aspects that were revealed in the applicant's disclosure, and claim terminology. Patent Examiners and anybody tasked with safeguarding confidential application data are responsible for developing unique search strategies. The documentation of the search tactics must follow accepted standards and protocols. For a fair assessment of the evaluation of an application, a thorough search must be conducted. The search should include references that are not necessary for rejecting the claims but would be helpful in preventing the presentation of claims to other disclosed subject matter. It should also cover all subject matter that the examiner reasonably anticipates may be included in the applicant's amendment. In conclusion, the USPTO Patent Internet Usage Policy offers recommendations for using the Internet in patent examination and aids in making sure that everything is done fairly, quickly, and securely while safeguarding sensitive data.

By Matthew Sean Tucker|2023-02-04T20:11:32-05:00February 12th, 2023|Patents|Comments Off

Understanding the Three Steps of Conducting a Thorough Patent Search
Gallery
Understanding the Three Steps of Conducting a Thorough Patent Search

Patents

Understanding the Three Steps of Conducting a Thorough Patent Search

The examiner of a patent application is required to perform a thorough search of the prior art, whereas a patent attorney is not required to perform a search. Finding the search field, choosing the right search tools, and figuring out the best search technique for each tool are the three key elements in this procedure. Domestic patents (including publications of patent applications), international patent documents, and nonpatent literature must all be included in the search box (NPL). No source may be excluded from the search unless the examiner has a good basis to do so and has no reason to believe that there will be further relevant references in that source. Both the claimed subject matter and any aspects that might be logically anticipated to be claimed should be included in the search. The examiner must take into account the coverage, strengths, and weaknesses of the available search tools appropriate for their chosen field while deciding which search tools to utilize. Each examiner's unique demands will determine the search techniques they use, with examiners in highly busy, high-technology fields—where patent documentation might not keep up with invention—getting special consideration. To ensure a thorough search under these circumstances, NPL and specific search tools may be required. Automated search solutions frequently include both text and categorized search functionality, with a combination of both being required in the majority of technologies. However, it can be difficult to effectively explain search demands in textual words, particularly in mechanical arts. In certain situations, it could be essential to use broader text terms or to browse all patent documents inside one or more classifications. Each case must be evaluated individually to establish the best search method for the tool(s) used, with [...]

By Matthew Sean Tucker|2023-02-04T20:03:09-05:00February 8th, 2023|Patents|Comments Off

The Importance of Disclosing Material Information in the Patent Process
Gallery
The Importance of Disclosing Material Information in the Patent Process

Patents

The Importance of Disclosing Material Information in the Patent Process

You may ask whether obtaining a patnet is a complex process. The answer is it is a complex process. It requires careful attention to detail. It requires full transparency. That is why it is important to speak with a patent attorney as soon as possible to make sure you are properly and fully disclosing our invention. As provided in 37 CFR 1.56, those involved in the filing and prosecution of a patent application have a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Applicant's must disclose all information known to be material to the patentability of the claimed invention. This duty extends to each pending claim until the claim is cancelled, withdrawn, or the application becomes abandoned. The purpose of 37 CFR 1.5 is to ensure that the USPTO has all of the necessary information to properly evaluate the patentability of the claimed invention. A patent is a legal monopoly granted to the inventor. As such, the public has an interest that the patent examination process is thorough and transparent. When fully disclosing their invention to the USPTO, applicants can help to ensure that the patent granted is a true reflection of the invention and its novelty. In addition to disclosing information that establishes or refutes the patentability of a claim, applicants SHOULD review prior art cited in search reports carefully because it will help to inform you. This includes prior art of foreign patent offices and any information that is closely related to the claims being made. This can help to identify any potential issues with the patentability of the claimed invention and allow the applicant to address them before the application is granted. It's important to note [...]

By Matthew Sean Tucker|2023-01-11T19:59:29-05:00January 28th, 2023|Patents|Comments Off

Unsung Inventors: The Minds Behind Everyday Innovations
Gallery
Unsung Inventors: The Minds Behind Everyday Innovations

Patent History, Patents

Unsung Inventors: The Minds Behind Everyday Innovations

Looking at stories of some of the unsung inventors, from a patent attorney's perspective, who have made significant contributions to the world of technology and innovation, but are often overlooked in history books. These include the inventor of the paper clip to the creator of the first successful mechanical television. These individuals have had a lasting impact on our daily lives and yet are basically unknown. In the world of innovation and technology, everything thinks of big names like Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Steve Jobs. But what about the inventors whose names we don't know, yet whose creations we use every day? Let's talk about these unsung inventors and heros that have made significant contributions to our world, yet are often overlooked. One example is Johan Vaaler He was a Norwegian inventor and he patented the paper clip in 1899. The paper clip is a small invention, but it has become a staple in offices--despite actual staples. Vaaler's invention was a simple, yet effective solution to the problem of keeping papers together but unlike a staple, no damage to the papers. Johan Vaaler was a Norwegian inventor who is best known for inventing the paper clip. He was born in 1866. And like many early inventors, worked as a patent clerk--in this case in Germany and Austria--before returning to Norway in the late 1800s. In 1899, Vaaler was granted a patent for his design of the paper clip in Norway. The design consisted of a simple loop of wire that could be easily opened and closed to hold papers together. Vaaler's invention was quickly adopted. It became immensely popular in Norway and other parts of Europe. However, his patent was not filed in [...]

By Matthew Sean Tucker|2023-01-15T02:14:36-05:00January 24th, 2023|Patent History, Patents|Comments Off