good news or bad news ???
April 6th, 2011 at 3:43:15 PM
permalink
Fast Track 12-Month Examination Begins May 4, 2011 - $4,000 fee
Posted: 05 Apr 2011 09:54 AM PDT
The new prioritized examination system known as "Track One" will begin on May 4, 2011. For a $4,000 fee, the USPTO will prioritize the handling of your patent application with a goal of reaching a final disposition within twelve months. A prioritized application is "accorded special status and placed on the examiner's special docket throughout its entire course of prosecution before the examiner until a final disposition is reached." Here, of course, "final disposition" means that the application is either allowed, abandoned, or is subject to a "final rejection" (which can then be appealed).
Qualification criteria:
* Application must be filed on or after May 4, 2011 using the the USPTO's electronic filing system;
* Application must be "complete;"
* The request for prioritized application must be filed with the application itself;
* Application may contain no more than four independent and thirty total claims; and
* The $4,000 fee must be paid in addition to the normal filing fees. Without congressional legislation, the USPTO asserts that it cannot offer a small-entity discount.
Due to resource constraints, the PTO is limiting the track one initiative to 10,000 applications for the May-Sept 2011 period (the remainder of FY 2011).
The $4,000 fee was set after the USPTO estimated the average cost to the Office of performing the service.
Posted: 05 Apr 2011 09:54 AM PDT
The new prioritized examination system known as "Track One" will begin on May 4, 2011. For a $4,000 fee, the USPTO will prioritize the handling of your patent application with a goal of reaching a final disposition within twelve months. A prioritized application is "accorded special status and placed on the examiner's special docket throughout its entire course of prosecution before the examiner until a final disposition is reached." Here, of course, "final disposition" means that the application is either allowed, abandoned, or is subject to a "final rejection" (which can then be appealed).
Qualification criteria:
* Application must be filed on or after May 4, 2011 using the the USPTO's electronic filing system;
* Application must be "complete;"
* The request for prioritized application must be filed with the application itself;
* Application may contain no more than four independent and thirty total claims; and
* The $4,000 fee must be paid in addition to the normal filing fees. Without congressional legislation, the USPTO asserts that it cannot offer a small-entity discount.
Due to resource constraints, the PTO is limiting the track one initiative to 10,000 applications for the May-Sept 2011 period (the remainder of FY 2011).
The $4,000 fee was set after the USPTO estimated the average cost to the Office of performing the service.
April 6th, 2011 at 4:39:26 PM
permalink
What is that supposed to mean??
April 6th, 2011 at 4:45:21 PM
permalink
Quote: JL2What is that supposed to mean??
GO AWAY
April 6th, 2011 at 4:50:35 PM
permalink
When I was a kid, the biggest house in the neighborhood belonged to a patent attorney. They had a pool and a tennis court and servant quarters. Every year he got a new Lincoln. His kids went to a private school. He had an electric gate at the bottom of his 1/4 mile paved driveway. They had at least 10 horses and his property went all the way down to the river. We called them 'The Rich People'.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 6th, 2011 at 5:03:35 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffThe new prioritized examination system known as "Track One" will begin on May 4, 2011. For a $4,000 fee, the USPTO will prioritize the handling of your patent application with a goal of reaching a final disposition within twelve months. .
To me, that seems like a particularly bad idea for table game inventors right now. I was just reading earlier today, actually, about current 101 rejections on board and card games. The BPAI is currently taking a dim view of card games and has been upholding a *lot* of 101 rejections. See Ex Parte Ward for a recent example of where the BPAI upheld an Examiner's 101 rejection.
RichN posted a few months back about how he used the new Bilski guidelines to successfully overcome a 101 rejection. I'd love to read the FH on that one, assuming it's on PAIR. Rich, if you read this, what was the app #?
Disclaimer: do not take this as legal advice. I am not an attorney.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
April 6th, 2011 at 5:17:36 PM
permalink
As someone who has filed several patents, I know how slow the process can be. It is a sad commentary that 12 months is considered expedited. I have no problem with the general idea of paying for rush service, as one can do with a passport application. This still does not address the bigger problem of the USPO being understaffed.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
April 6th, 2011 at 5:20:39 PM
permalink
Well, I filed three patents yesterday, and I'm glad it only cost me $1500 instead of $12,000. That said, accepting 10k patent apps at $4000 (actually, I read it was $4800), will put an awful lot of money into the PTO's coffers immediately. Hopefully that can go toward hiring.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
April 6th, 2011 at 5:35:22 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardAs someone who has filed several patents,
I have a friend who patented 2 inventions that made a lot of money for him. He said the patent process was so long, so expensive, and so horrible, he'd rather sell his stuff without a patent, its not worth the hassle of getting one.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
April 6th, 2011 at 10:43:57 PM
permalink
speak of the devil, and he will appear...
thanks dave!
As I told him, I don't have a problem with a fast track as proposed, at least in theory. I do have a problem with the fact that regular examination at the patent office has been painfully slow for many years now, patent examiner turnover seems extremely high, and the level of professionalism and quality of examination has significantly decreased over the last decade.
PTO resources are clearly limited. I'm concerned that implementation of this fast track will just cause more of a drain on those already limited resources and cause further delay for the non-fast track applications. I'm also not convinced that there will be a significant enough interest to justify the existence of a fast track. I know everyone complains about the patent office being slow. The backlog in some art units mean that it can take 3 years for the first office action to be issued. In my experience, a pending application isn't such a bad thing and can be useful. For example, cases may cause changes in the law, for better or worse. At over 4k a pop I believe there will need to be a compelling reason to consider taking the fast track at least at first. I also wait until the quality of the examination in the fast track becomes apparent. If the examination is handled extremely well, perhaps with a lot of time allowed for meaningful interaction between attorney and examiner - which is how it used to be without paying an extra 4k! - then the PTO should easily meet the quota. If that's how it works out then I would consider it as a viable option under certain circumstances. After a thorough and favorable prior art search of course.
As for the Bilski matter... well this case has become special to me. The inventor is such a great guy, extremely intelligent and has suffered as his patent application has been pending for over 6 years now. I can't say it's entirely the fault of the patent office. I'm either the 3rd or 4th attorney to handle this case, I can't remember. I do remember that the last attorney did some things with the case that I wouldn't and I got the case just a few weeks before the end of the 6 month term. So I cleaned that up and argued against a bilski 101 rejection. The examiner subsequently dropped it, so I guess I won on that point but I knew we'd get a final because I basically rewrote the claims. It seemed like the examiner still wasn't getting it so I arranged for an interview which went really well and we subsequently worked out an allowable claim with just a minor amendment that didn't really change the scope. Now we're just waiting for that notice of allowance. I'll have to pull up the number for you. Ok, here it is. 10/917,717 - check out the amendment filed in August and the applicant's remarks - the 10 page one - to see the bilski argument.
Give me a buzz or contact me if you'd like to discuss.
thanks dave!
As I told him, I don't have a problem with a fast track as proposed, at least in theory. I do have a problem with the fact that regular examination at the patent office has been painfully slow for many years now, patent examiner turnover seems extremely high, and the level of professionalism and quality of examination has significantly decreased over the last decade.
PTO resources are clearly limited. I'm concerned that implementation of this fast track will just cause more of a drain on those already limited resources and cause further delay for the non-fast track applications. I'm also not convinced that there will be a significant enough interest to justify the existence of a fast track. I know everyone complains about the patent office being slow. The backlog in some art units mean that it can take 3 years for the first office action to be issued. In my experience, a pending application isn't such a bad thing and can be useful. For example, cases may cause changes in the law, for better or worse. At over 4k a pop I believe there will need to be a compelling reason to consider taking the fast track at least at first. I also wait until the quality of the examination in the fast track becomes apparent. If the examination is handled extremely well, perhaps with a lot of time allowed for meaningful interaction between attorney and examiner - which is how it used to be without paying an extra 4k! - then the PTO should easily meet the quota. If that's how it works out then I would consider it as a viable option under certain circumstances. After a thorough and favorable prior art search of course.
As for the Bilski matter... well this case has become special to me. The inventor is such a great guy, extremely intelligent and has suffered as his patent application has been pending for over 6 years now. I can't say it's entirely the fault of the patent office. I'm either the 3rd or 4th attorney to handle this case, I can't remember. I do remember that the last attorney did some things with the case that I wouldn't and I got the case just a few weeks before the end of the 6 month term. So I cleaned that up and argued against a bilski 101 rejection. The examiner subsequently dropped it, so I guess I won on that point but I knew we'd get a final because I basically rewrote the claims. It seemed like the examiner still wasn't getting it so I arranged for an interview which went really well and we subsequently worked out an allowable claim with just a minor amendment that didn't really change the scope. Now we're just waiting for that notice of allowance. I'll have to pull up the number for you. Ok, here it is. 10/917,717 - check out the amendment filed in August and the applicant's remarks - the 10 page one - to see the bilski argument.
Give me a buzz or contact me if you'd like to discuss.
April 7th, 2011 at 4:33:11 AM
permalink
Rich is referring to me. I sent him an email last night about this thread.Quote: RichNspeak of the devil, and he will appear...
thanks dave!
Since he's my lawyer for my Poker For Roulette idea, I asked him what it meant to me. His response contained most of the same stuff as in his post above.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
April 7th, 2011 at 4:46:37 AM
permalink
I have no dog in this fight, but any time an 'expedited process' is allowed, what it really means is that the 'regular process' is delayed. What they are really saying is we could have looked at yours in, say, 6 months, but others are paying to jump the line, so yours won't be looked at for 12 months. It sounds sleazy to me.
April 7th, 2011 at 8:41:24 AM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOI have no dog in this fight, but any time an 'expedited process' is allowed, what it really means is that the 'regular process' is delayed. ...
The (hopefully real) alternative to this is the case where there are enough people urgently interested in expedience that they will pay substantial fees for it, with the fees being sufficient to provide enough new resources that both the "expedited" and "regular" processes take place faster. I have no idea whether this will happen or not, but I don't think it is certain that the regular process will be delayed.
In contrast, I remember some years ago doing business with a company that always had a backlog of work and offered expedited handling for a fee. Their fee was so low that I couldn't see why it wasn't purchased by everyone! Perhaps it was, and that was just a somewhat-hidden price increase.
April 7th, 2011 at 9:03:11 AM
permalink
You're talking about a government bureaucracy, therefore, NOT!Quote: Doc...I have no idea whether this will happen or not,...
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
