Comments on: Patent Office to Accelerate Green Technology Patents http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: USPTO Expands Green Technology Acceleration Pilot Program http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-13275 USPTO Expands Green Technology Acceleration Pilot Program Sun, 13 Jun 2010 17:04:40 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-13275 [...] other than corporate giants, so as part of an overall solution I think it is a great idea.  While acceleration based on co-existing international filings will likely not help any independent inventors or even most small businesses, it is certainly [...] [...] other than corporate giants, so as part of an overall solution I think it is a great idea.  While acceleration based on co-existing international filings will likely not help any independent inventors or even most small businesses, it is certainly [...]

]]> By: USPTO Expands Green Technology Acceleration Pilot Program | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-12980 USPTO Expands Green Technology Acceleration Pilot Program | IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law Fri, 21 May 2010 21:22:31 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-12980 [...] other than corporate giants, so as part of an overall solution I think it is a great idea.  While acceleration based on co-existing international filings will likely not help any independent inventors or even most small businesses, it is certainly [...] [...] other than corporate giants, so as part of an overall solution I think it is a great idea.  While acceleration based on co-existing international filings will likely not help any independent inventors or even most small businesses, it is certainly [...]

]]> By: Gena777 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9859 Gena777 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 04:28:54 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9859 There's little question that "green" technology is increasingly critical to preservation of the environment. However, the USPTO's decision definitely appears to be politically motivated. But it's certainly nothing new for politics and patent law to be intertwined. Still, one hopes that Kappos et al. have paid heed not only to the political points scored for this decision, but have also thoroughly considered other potential consequences (both positive and negative) of this preferential treatment. We'll see how things progress. http://www.GeneralPatent.com There’s little question that “green” technology is increasingly critical to preservation of the environment. However, the USPTO’s decision definitely appears to be politically motivated. But it’s certainly nothing new for politics and patent law to be intertwined. Still, one hopes that Kappos et al. have paid heed not only to the political points scored for this decision, but have also thoroughly considered other potential consequences (both positive and negative) of this preferential treatment. We’ll see how things progress.
http://www.GeneralPatent.com

]]> By: broje http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9837 broje Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:15:48 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9837 Having read the Notice in the Official Gazette about the new pilot program, I note that it is only available for patents filed before December 8, 2009 and that have not yet been taken up for Examination. I also note that granting of the petition will only affect that particular case and not Continuing applications. The Notice say that separate petitions must be filed in the Continuing applications. My question is whether the separate petitions filed in Continuing applications can only be filed in those Continuing applications if the Continuing applications were actually filed before December 8, 2009. In other words, does the requirement that the application be filed prior to December 8, 2009 reference the actual US filing date or the effective US filing date? Also, the Notice makes it clear that the Application will only be advanced out of turn for the first Examination, and then placed in the amended queue, and not in the special queue, so it will not be given special treatment for publication and for appeals. But what about RCEs? RCEs are now placed in the queue with new applications and years can pass before they are taken up for examination. Are these applications once more in a position to be taken up for a first office action? In other words, can a petition be filed to advance them out of the queue? If so, must a new petition be filed each time an RCE is filed, or does a prior grant of a petition carry over to the RCE? Having read the Notice in the Official Gazette about the new pilot program, I note that it is only available for patents filed before December 8, 2009 and that have not yet been taken up for Examination. I also note that granting of the petition will only affect that particular case and not Continuing applications. The Notice say that separate petitions must be filed in the Continuing applications.

My question is whether the separate petitions filed in Continuing applications can only be filed in those Continuing applications if the Continuing applications were actually filed before December 8, 2009. In other words, does the requirement that the application be filed prior to December 8, 2009 reference the actual US filing date or the effective US filing date?

Also, the Notice makes it clear that the Application will only be advanced out of turn for the first Examination, and then placed in the amended queue, and not in the special queue, so it will not be given special treatment for publication and for appeals. But what about RCEs? RCEs are now placed in the queue with new applications and years can pass before they are taken up for examination. Are these applications once more in a position to be taken up for a first office action? In other words, can a petition be filed to advance them out of the queue? If so, must a new petition be filed each time an RCE is filed, or does a prior grant of a petition carry over to the RCE?

]]> By: step back http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9817 step back Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:18:24 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9817 @broje Yeah but the bulb is riding on abstract "soft" ware, not on bricks and mortar. If the bulb tips over, he'll just ruffle a couple of intangible pixels. That of course happening only if Gene has activated the virtual gravity in the above diagram. Sorry, couldn't resist (even though the bulb's filament of course does) ;-) @broje

Yeah but the bulb is riding on abstract “soft” ware, not on bricks and mortar.
If the bulb tips over, he’ll just ruffle a couple of intangible pixels.
That of course happening only if Gene has activated the virtual gravity in the above diagram.

Sorry, couldn’t resist (even though the bulb’s filament of course does)
;-)

]]> By: broje http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9812 broje Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:04:51 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9812 For a light bulb to ride a skateboard without a helmet or any other protective gear seems particularly foolhardy. That’s one dim bulb. For a light bulb to ride a skateboard without a helmet or any other protective gear seems particularly foolhardy. That’s one dim bulb.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9797 Gene Quinn Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:11:16 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9797 AC- I see. I am in complete agreement. -Gene AC-

I see. I am in complete agreement.

-Gene

]]> By: American Cowboy http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9794 American Cowboy Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:45:55 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9794 I said at the beginning that what the PTO is up to won't hurt -- that means no wasted taxpayer money (except of course the salaries and other overhead associated with pushing the papers involved). My waste comment was intended to refer to the other stuff the Obama administration is doing to "encourage" (i.e. subsidize) green jobs, etc. in "Stimulus Plan 1" and this week's announced "Bastard kid of Stimulus Plan 1." I said at the beginning that what the PTO is up to won’t hurt — that means no wasted taxpayer money (except of course the salaries and other overhead associated with pushing the papers involved).

My waste comment was intended to refer to the other stuff the Obama administration is doing to “encourage” (i.e. subsidize) green jobs, etc. in “Stimulus Plan 1″ and this week’s announced “Bastard kid of Stimulus Plan 1.”

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9793 Gene Quinn Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:43:28 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9793 AC- What exactly is a waste of taxpayer money? The speeding up of these applications, which would be examined anyway eventually, won't cost any money. It will slow things down for others no doubt, but I fail to see the connection between this initiative and costing taxpayers. -Gene AC-

What exactly is a waste of taxpayer money? The speeding up of these applications, which would be examined anyway eventually, won’t cost any money. It will slow things down for others no doubt, but I fail to see the connection between this initiative and costing taxpayers.

-Gene

]]> By: American Cowboy http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/08/patent-office-to-accelerate-green-technology-patents/id=7609/#comment-9791 American Cowboy Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:50:56 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7609#comment-9791 I don't suppose this proposal will hurt anything, but it won't help either. Just a bunch of lefty/treehugger hot air. We have add acccelerated examination of environmental protection and energy enhancement technologies for years. See MPEP 708,01 paragraphs V and VI. All the hoopla about funding green technologies and subsidizing people's housing insulation and stuff was done before -- in the 1970's. see: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html</a> <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg-3.cfm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg-3.cfm</a> It was an inefficient use of taxpayers' money then and will be an inefficient use of taxpayers' money again. Folks who get their news from twitter should look up some history. I don’t suppose this proposal will hurt anything, but it won’t help either. Just a bunch of lefty/treehugger hot air.

We have add acccelerated examination of environmental protection and energy enhancement technologies for years. See MPEP 708,01 paragraphs V and VI.

All the hoopla about funding green technologies and subsidizing people’s housing insulation and stuff was done before — in the 1970′s.
see: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg-3.cfm

It was an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money then and will be an inefficient use of taxpayers’ money again. Folks who get their news from twitter should look up some history.

]]>