Category: Patents

Posted on

What these three things have in common?

click to enlarge

Here are images showing three things, one of which is the  two-factor authentication box on the USPTO web site.  That box used to say “This is a computer that I trust and use regularly” (blog article, October 8, 2019) but recently the USPTO changed the wording of this box.  Now it says “Remember this browser and do not ask again for 24 hours.”  Although USPTO changed the wording in the box, I do not think USPTO changed anything about the actual function of the box.  This prompts me to invite the reader to post a comment below if you can think of something that is similar about these three things.

Posted on

December 24 and 25 are holidays at the USPTO

It was already known (blog post) that Wednesday, December 25, 2019 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  Today’s news is that in addition, by order of the President, the federal government will be closed on Tuesday, December 24.  This means the USPTO will be closed not only on December 25 but also on December 24.  This means that any action that would be due at the USPTO on December 24 or 25 will be timely if it is done by Thursday, December 26, 2019.

Posted on

New book: PCT Forms and PCT Docketing

Update:  The book is now finalized and you can see it here and here.

I’m working on a new book.  It’s entitled Oppedahl on PCT Forms and PCT Docketing.  Right now it is in what I might term beta testing.  The book is version 0.8.  I am providing copies of the book to some folks free of charge in the hopes that they will take a look at the book and maybe make suggestions or corrections.  Then I will finalize the book and release it for general sale. Continue reading “New book: PCT Forms and PCT Docketing”

Posted on

December 25 is a holiday at the USPTO

Wednesday, December 25, 2019 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  This means the USPTO will be closed.  This means that any action that would be due at the USPTO on December 25 will be timely if it is done by Thursday, December 26, 2019.

Posted on

Training material for the USPTO

(Update:  three years later it seems the DO/EO/US people need to be reminded about PCT Declaration Number 4.  See blog article.)

I am providing some training material free of charge to the USPTO.  The training material, which relates to PCT Declaration Number 4 under PCT Rule 4.17, is prompted by a mistake that a nameless person at the USPTO made in one of our cases today.  Continue reading “Training material for the USPTO”

Posted on

The PCT in 2019: an end of the year update from WIPO

(You can see the slides here.)

(Updated to include some of the topics.)

It has just now been announced that in just about 24 hours, Matthias Reischle-Park of WIPO will deliver a free-of-charge webinar entitled:

The PCT in 2019: end of the year update

I have learned informally what some of the topics will be:

  • Rule changes (in force and coming next year)
  • color drawings
  • best ways to contact the IB without relying on fax
  • collaborative search
  • WIPO IP Portal

I gather it will last about an hour.  My guess is that if you are a PCT enthusiast or power user, you should attend.  I plan to attend.

To register for the webinar, click here.

Posted on

Collaborative Search Pilot

click to enlarge

I am told that not very many applicants make use of the two Collaborative Search Pilot (CSP) programs at the USPTO.  Each of the programs offers a fast-track way to get a strong patent.  The more I think about CSP, the more I wonder why the programs get such little use.  In this blog article I will describe the programs and I will offer my thoughts as to how an applicant might go about deciding whether or not to make use of the programs. Finally I will mention the actual numbers of times the two CSP programs have gotten used by applicants. Continue reading “Collaborative Search Pilot”

Posted on

Drawings that are good enough and then not good enough

Every month or so, in recent years, we receive from the USPTO a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers (NTFCAP) in a recently filed patent application that says our drawings are not good enough.  What we find to be frustrating and annoying about this is that invariably the application is a continuation or a divisional of an application in which the drawings were good enough. Today I filed a request to have such a Notice withdrawn.  Here is what I wrote:  Continue reading “Drawings that are good enough and then not good enough”