IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "public pair"

The Good, the Bad and the Missing: Findings from a Review of the Data on Granted Retroactive Foreign Filing Licenses

Since launching Petition.ai’s searchable database of publicly available patent petition documents filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the most searched petition type, by far, is for a Retroactive Foreign Filing License (RFFL). Anecdotally, patent practitioners believe it is difficult, if not almost impossible, to obtain a RFFL. However, while the process may take a long time and may require several petitions, our analysis shows requests for RFFLs are often granted, eventually. A future article will examine the most common reasons why RFFL petitions are dismissed. Finally, our research uncovered some troubling issues with the substantial number of the granted petition decisions not available for public review.

Users Lament PAIR Changes During USPTO Forum

Jamie Holcombe, Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seemed surprised to learn on Wednesday that both the Public and Private versions of the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) System have serious issues that are making workflows untenable for users.

Holcombe was participating in a public Forum on the PAIR system, where USPTO staff listened to stakeholders’ experiences since the Office implemented major security changes to the system on November 15, 2019. “The USPTO disabled the ability to look up public cases outside of a customer number using Private PAIR,” explained Shawn Lillemo, Software Product Manager at Harrity LLP, who attended the Forum. “Most patent professionals prior to the change could retrieve all the PAIR information they needed from Private PAIR. That is no longer true.”

PolarityTE stock tumbles, harassed by activist short seller misrepresenting Public PAIR data

Whether the Citron report is intentionally wrong for the purpose of causing PolarityTE stock to tumble, which it has, or whether it is recklessly wrong, or just ignorant is impossible to tell. But what Citron says can without question be characterized as absolutely incorrect… Citron says that the non-final rejection was made known to PolarityTE on March 31, 2017, which they find to be conclusive proof of fraud because PolarityTE closed a transaction with shareholders on April 7, 2017. The problem, however, is the non-final rejection was mailed by the USPTO and sent to the law firm representing PolarityTE on April 7, 2017… Citron also claims that PolarityTE has engaged in fraud because they received a final rejection from the patent examiner and did not notify shareholders. Again, only those who are completely unfamiliar with patent practice and procedure could possibly make such an erroneous claim. A final rejection is anything but final in the everyday meaning of the word.

Doc’s Orders: Analogize to Overcome Patent Eligibility Rejections

Taking a hint from what has worked before can give patent prosecutors an advantage. The question is then how to find such examples for use in forming arguments and claim amendments to address Alice v. CLS Bank rejections…. If you happen to face an Alice v. CLS Bank rejection or are sorted into an art unit that experiences a high volume of Alice v. CLS Bank rejections, consulting the prosecution history of successful cases in Public PAIR can prove fruitful for identifying analogous claim limitations and arguments that may help stimulate your thinking in forming a successful strategy for patentability.

USPTO experiences catastrophic failure of electronic patent and trademark systems

On December 22, 2015, at approximately 7:00 pm, the USPTO experienced a catastrophic failure of electronic information systems due to what is being called a major power outage at the Office’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. Could a power outage be responsible for electronic filing systems and information systems being down for nearly a week? Yes, it is certainly possible, but if you read between the lines it seems to me that the USPTO does not definitively know what happened or why. Given the importance of the USPTO electronic systems why didn’t the USPTO have real, robust, and redundant contingency plans? Why did they choose not to answer questions? The one question I specifically posed was whether the Office could confirm that no information or files were lost. I have not yet received an answer to that question.

USPTO Systems Maintenance on December 5th

Due to maintenance required on USPTO systems, access to Public PAIR, Private PAIR, EFS-Web and EFS-Web Contingency will be unavailable beginning 12:01 a.m. and ending at 11:59 p.m. Saturday, December 5th ET.

USPTO to issue Apple patents for traffic data system, antenna and curing material next week

On October 27th, Apple will be issued a patent for a technology that analyzes a person’s travel plans to provide them with potential points of interest, laid out within U.S. Patent Application No. 20140223448, titled Dynamic Location Search Suggestions Based on Travel Itineraries. The amended first claim of this patent application will protect a method involving detecting itinerary information stored by a first application, identifying a travel destination based on the itinerary information, communicating the travel destination to a second application, storing the travel destination in a second application which is adapted to retrieve local information based on an identified geographic location, detecting the satisfaction of a triggering threshold for providing the local information, providing the local information for the travel destination in response to user interaction with the second application and in response to the threshold for the triggering event being satisfied, communicating the travel destination to a third application that retrieves local information based on an identified geographic location, providing local information of a first type through the second application at a time prior to the time of travel and providing local information of a second type through the third application at a time prior to the time of travel but after the time at which the information of a first type is provided. This innovation enables automatic updating of device application, such as weather or clock apps, in response to the detection that a user has travel plans. The file wrapper shows that this patent application did face a final rejection in March of this year for non-obviousness in light of a technology for data synchronization among widgets and the dashboard in a virtual environment.

After 11 Years Apple Gets Design Patent on Drop Down Menu

Have you ever heard of a design patent application that remained pending for nearly 11 years? The design patent application was originally filed on January 4, 2000, and the design patent was issued earlier today as U.S. Design Patent No. D629,412. The long and tortured path to obtain the design patent on a drop down menu took 10 years and 50 weeks! Almost unbelievable. Getting this one patent application off the books should meaningfully help the averages, which is a sad commentary in and of itself.

Making Progress with Difficult Patent Applications

Some patent applications are difficult to get agreement on. The examiner won’t allow and the applicant won’t abandon. The net result is that office actions and responses go back and forth with no apparent resolution in sight. We propose that progress with these difficult patent applications can be tracked by looking at two separate but interrelated metrics, “applicant effectiveness” and “examiner effectiveness”. These two metrics can then be used to diagnose and correct problems in patent prosecution and examination.

The Strange Case of the Animal Toy Patent: Reexam Redux

Two months ago I wrote about one of my favorite patents — The Animal Toy — which is U.S. Patent No. 6,360,693. See Patent on a Stick: Learning from the Animal Toy Patent. Shortly after writing that article, which was not intended to poke fun at the Patent Office but to merely teach a point relative to claim drafting, I received an e-mail from Stephen Kunin, who is a partner at Oblon Spivak, LLP. Steve wrote to me indicating that this patent was reexamined by the Patent Office and none of the claims exited reexamination. This in and of itself may not be very odd, but something didn’t seem quite right.

Breakthroughs & Abandonment: Patent Abandon Rate is a Reliable Measure of Speculative Portfolios

Abandons per action can be interpreted as a level of speculation in applications. Applications that have high abandon rates are highly speculative. Most of the inventions described in these applications ultimately have little value and the applications are abandoned quickly. If a portfolio of speculative applications as a whole, however, has value, then that value is concentrated in a few “breakthrough” applications. For some investors, this is a very desirable characteristic and they may wish to seek out portfolios with high abandon ratios.

Patent Searching 102: Using Public PAIR

If you are really serious about doing a high quality patent search on your own I recommend doing whatever you can to find 1 or 2 patents or patent applications that closely relate to your invention, whether that means in terms of structure or concept. I hear all the time that inventors do searches and cannot find anything relevant, which is unbelievable. If you do a search and find nothing then you are doing something wrong. See No Prior Art for my Invention. Do whatever you have to, and in a pinch to find something quick that is at least somewhat relevant Google Patent Search will do. Then visit Public PAIR and see what you can find out about the prior art found and used by the patent examiner against that patent or patent application.

Reducing Patent Backlog and Prosecution Costs Using PAIR Data

Patent applications as a whole over the past 10 years have had an average allowance to rejection ratio of about 0.3. We arrived at this ratio by generating a list of 300 randomly selected application serial numbers in the 10/, 11/, and 12/ series, and individually reviewing the transaction histories for each serial number. An allowance to rejection ratio of 0.3 corresponds to about one allowance for every three rejections. First office actions have a somewhat lower allowance ratio than the average. This is consistent with the common knowledge that applicants will take a more aggressive position with the claims that they file relative to the amended claims they present after a rejection. The allowance to rejection ratio for second and higher rejections remains relatively constant. This has the somewhat disturbing implication that practitioners and examiners are not getting any better at understanding each other as prosecution progresses. If practitioners and examiners were learning from each rejection – response interchange, then the allowance ratio would increase for each succeeding office action.