United States Patent and Trademark Office Commissioner for Patents P Uspto Form

The USPTO has a patent quality program, designed to help improve the quality of the patenting process. You can read about what they are doing here: Patent QualityNote this final message on the linked webpage:We Want Your Feedback!Robust interaction with you, our stakeholders, is crucial to continuous improvement to our patent system in a way that best assists you. Send us an email.If you believe the USPTO is still issuing an unacceptably large number of “ludicrous patents”, then GET INVOLVED. Send them an email. Tell them how you are finding this easily discoverable prior art, and ask them (nicely) to explain why they aren’t finding it, or why it’s not really prior art, or it’s not legally relevant prior art,Consider participating in STEPP (Stakeholder Training on Examination Practice and Procedure).Do understand that Patent Examiners have a very limited amount of time to conduct their patent searches… far less time than, say, a patent attorney preparing for litigation. Accordingly, I am not saying that mistakes don’t happen; but patent searching is a exercise in vanishing returns in terms of use of government resources, and I have sympathy for the Examiners. In fact, I’m rather in awe of their typical skill at finding relevant, applicable prior art. Most of them are FAR better at it than I ever was.If you still have concerns… consider approaching your congressman or congresswoman.Be prepared to show recent specific examples, with documentations that includes the prosecution history of the egregious patents you are citing. You might also want to talk with a patent professional (even if you are one), just to get a “reality check” on your opinion about these “ludicrous patents”.

I don’t know about your specific exam, but I can offer some general tips:Plan your study periods — the time, place, amount you need to get done, and what you will study.Make sure you focus when you work — avoid distractions such as notifications from your phone, other people, and worried thoughts in your head.Get adequate sleep and good nutrition in the weeks and months leading up to the exam.Simplify any part of the process that you can to improve your clarity and focus.Best wishes.

No.The U.S. Constitution confers exclusive protection to the inventor. It doesn’t say that the inventor must “commercially implement” the invention.For some patents, the value is somewhat speculative. And there’s no way to know whether a patent will be used commercially at all. Maybe, maybe not. Trying to discern some of these issues—the property rights are made fuzzier—just encourages more litigation.In short, it’s very hard to get rid of patent trolls because the system is fundamentally set up to encourage third-parties value inventor’s inventions.If the laws on patent damages were just a bit more moderate, then it wouldn’t be much of an issue. Damages for patent infringement are supposed to be no less than a “reasonable royalty”. But they can also be tripled. And what constitutes a “reasonable royalty” can vary quite wildly. A reasonable royalty—decided years in the future—can be something that no one would have ever really paid at the outset of the enterprise.So, if you fixed damages in patent troll cases to reasonable royalties only, it might discourage some misbehavior while balancing against the inventor’s right to compensation.There have also been some efforts to make it easier to balance bogus patents, but I haven’t kept up on how that’s been working out.

If a trademark has become generic, it no longer functions to indicate the origin of its associated goods/services, and its Registration is rendered invalid. Bayer’s mark ASPIRIN is an example of a trademark that became generic, rendering its Registrations invalid,You say that JavaScript has become generic, but without substantial evidence to this effect, I cannot form a view. Evidence that might prove convincing in this regard would include the marks presence in a dictionary as the name for or description of product/service type. In this regard, javascript does not appear in Merriam Websters. This contrasts with aspirin which is defined as:1 - a white crystalline derivative C9H8O4 of salicylic acid used for relief of pain and fever2 - a tablet of aspirin.

The term “new matter” comes into play when an applicant is making changes to the application, such as claim amendments, amendments to the specification, or changes to the drawings.35 U.S.C. 132 requires that amendments not introduce “new matter” into the disclosure of the invention. The exact boundary of new matter is complicated and fact-dependent. Sometimes it depends on what the reader would assume the inventor knew at the time of filing, sometimes it depends on what the reader would need to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.It is not something that is explicitly defined. As explained in MPEP 2163.06, if “an applicant amends or attempts to amend the abstract, specification or drawings of an application, an issue of new matter will arise if the content of the amendment is not described in the application as filed. Stated another way, information contained in any one of the specification, claims or drawings of the application as filed may be added to any other part of the application without introducing new matter.” See how well it is defined there?Additional examples can be found at: 2163-Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, “Written Description” Requirement

Does the USPTO Attache Accomplish it’s mandated goals? ChinaNewsDay image 2018Bureaucracy expands to keep up with the needs of an expanding bureaucracy- Isaac AsimovI sent Joel Blank an email of my Article to hopefully get a response so he could dispute some of my conclusions and the U. S. Government reports regarding the edfextiveness of the USPTO Attache program. Mr Blank, the government shutdown has been over 12 hours by the Time I revived this reply. Res ipsa loquitur?By Edward Lehman 雷曼律师法学博士, Legal Adviser World bank世界银行, Legal & Public Affairs Commentator CGTN 中央电视台, and MD of LEHMAN, LEE & XU LLPChinaNewsDay image of IP Attaché for China & Mongolia Joel Blank who serves as the intellectual property (IP) attaché at the U.S. embassy in Beijing, China see Joel BlankAccording to the U.S. Governmental reports reviewed in order to answer this question it seems the primary goals and objectives of the IP Attaché Program at the US Embassy in China is to promote U.S. government IP policy in two countries: China & the Republic of Mongolia.The USPTO Attache Officer Joel Blank reported deals with China National level issues in China, Beijing and Shenyang consular districts, as well as the Republic of Mongolia.As to Mongolia, I am the first and as far as I know the only foreign lawyer to be trained in intellectual property to be admitted as a Mongolian lawyer, the only American lawyer to be trained in intellectual property to be admitted as a Mongolian lawyer, I have known the each of the head officials in Mongolia Intellectual Property over many Mongolian governmental administrations and not a single Mongolian involved in the IP process in Mongolia is aware of the USPTO attache program nor Joel Blank. The program is at best invisible among the Mongoian government, its people, the IP lawyers in Mongolia and the first and only foreign lawyer IP lawyer to have worked in Mongoia. But, well like that just like my opinion I would like to hear if I am wrong and would be glad to stand corrected.According to the official USPTO website the USPTO Attache’s office is located at 55 An Jia Lou Road Beijing, China 100600, The U.S. Office phones is +86 10-8531-4812 and the USPTO Attache’s email: joel.blank@trade.gov but, good luck trying to get a hold of him or any of his staff, I have been trying over the course of almost the past five years, to no avail.According to U.S. government report (See http://iipi.org/wp-content/uploa... ) which evaluated the USPTO Attache program it is described as a U.S. Government program through various U.S. governmental agencies, to provide technical assistance, training, and capacity building “support” to the foreign government of People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the foreign government of Republic of Mongolia (Mongolia) to assist in improving China & Mongolia’s intellectual property rights (IPR) regimes and enforcement environments.One U.S. government report concluded that the program is not very helpful and as whether and to what extent such support impacts U.S. businesses exporting to, licensing in, franchising in, and otherwise doing business in China & Mongolia it does say there is a program, but it has made it clear that this program, has not yet established among other things “best practices” and has not been consistent at following-up with the embassies. In our report the U.S. government had suggested there be no qualifications as to language for the USPTO Attache to be even able to speak, read, or write Chinese and/or Mongolian. How are they supposed to communicate with governmental leaders, and/or even read the laws, regulations and policies of China & Mongolia as is the mandate for the USPTO Attache located in Beijing for China & Mongolia.The U.S. Government reports analyzed whether there is a correlation between (a) technical assistance and capacity building activities and (b) the growth of exports and other business activity by U.S. businesses and the reports that I have read have all been inconclusive as to whether the USPTO Attache for China & Mongolia is effective. The officer in the U.S. Mission Joel Blank is born and raised in Iowa, studied accounting at Drake University, from which he holds and undergraduate degree, and earned his JD from American University Washington College of Law and has served in this position for five years now, since 2013 so this will be the final year, under the rules for him to be at the post. I myself have not had the pleasure of meeting Joel Blank, and no one I have met has even met him as far as I can tell, either our firm’s American clients operating the IP sector in Mongolia & China, the Chinese and Mongolian officials with whom I work in the IP field. I have tried in vain over these years to contact Joel Blank but been unable to meet him to date, despite the fact Joel Blank office is less than a quarter of a mile from my office in Beijing, is located within the Embassy of the United States of America in Beijing the diplomatic mission of the United States of America in China which is the administrative office of the United States Ambassador to China and the seat of China-United States relations.The reports I have read by the U.S. government have concluded access to the USPTO Attache is limited. The USPTO Attache is largely not available, and not answerable to the U.S. public nor the State Department, not the Department of Commerce. This “in-between” situation has not been effective as to the mandate. Certainly, the entry to the U.S. Embassy is not helpful for American companies and stakeholders as it is difficult to enter the agency, the USPTO Attache, and the other support staff within the USPTO Attache do not seem to arrange the correct training for American related business owners in China & Mongolia and the training of China officials is poorly attended and the training sessions notices are given with too little time to respond, and that there has been almost no work at all performed as to Mongolia.My own experience, and the experiences of each American business with which I have become acquainted has not found anything helpful for the USPTO Attache program to date. My contacts with the Mongolian government Chinese government for the various departments dealing with intellectual property are not even aware of the office of the USPTO Attache within the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. has been the USPTO Attache has not been responsive each time we have signNowed out to him or his staff, the USPTO Attache is has no education, training, or work experience as to intellectual property in the U.S. or in China, so whatever he has learned seems to be learned “on the job”. The USPTO Attache has not been available to meet with or discuss any help or support for any of the American clients of our law firm in China & Mongolia to date (we hope it might happen) we have signNowed out to the Attache, is not available by phone, nor can one come to freely meet with the U.S. Attache.In conclusion, the USPTO Attache Program’s mandate in Beijing includes “lofty goals” whereby (1) they help to secure “high standards” in international agreements (those between China, Republic of Mongolia, and/or US and International bodies); (2) help to secure China & Mongolia’s own country laws concerning intellectual property; (3) help to encourage effective IP protection and enforcement in China and the Republic of Mongolia has not been effective. I for one have never have met anyone who has expressed that this program has been effective from the American government (in written reports), Chinese government does not know as far as I can tell the office of the USPTO Attache exists, American business community in China has never expressed the position or the mandate has been helpful, and neither the Chinese business community in China nor Chinese judiciary, media, nor think tanks are aware that the USPTO Attache program even exist.About the Author:Edward LEHMAN 雷曼律师法学博士 only private-practice lawyer in China appointed State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs (SAFEA) 国家外国专家局 an agency State Council 中华人民共和国国务院； Legal Affairs Commentator CCTV/CGTN 中央电视台, Fellow Chinese Academy Social Sciences (CASS)中国社会科学院 Chinese Government Think Tank. Adjunct faculty Tsinghua U. 清华大学 China U. Politics & Law 中国政法大学; Board of Directors, Shanghai JiaoTong U. 上海交通大学; Fulbright Fellow, Shanghai Fudan University 复旦大学 under United States Information Agency (USIA).Foreign Legal Counsellor , One Belt One Road 一带一路 (“OBOR”)；Foreign Legal Adviser- China Pakistan Economic Corridor (“CPEC”).China legal adviser World Bank 世界银行, first foreign lawyer approved to work at Chinese law firm 雷曼律师事务所, former Governor American Chamber Commerce elected by American business community Beijing & Shanghai. Founder (with son US President George HW Bush 老布什 & younger brother US President George W Bush 小布什) stakeholder LehmanBush 雷曼布什投资公司 PE firm; early adapter ICO, blockchain, cryptocurrency, digital asset, fintech, legal adviser Bitcoin /Satoshi Nakamoto. Email: elehman@lehmanlaw.com; Wechat 微信:13511020522 skype: elehman see LEHMAN, LEE & XU LLP see LEHMAN BUSH

If you are considering making this sort of website, you will need to get a lawyer to guide you through the process of protecting your work.In short, websites are protected by copyright because they are a creative work. The design, text, and images are all "unique creative works".Patents protect a technology or process. So if your website also does something on the backend that is not customer-visible (like operate a database to produce search results, exactly like Google Search does), that process could be patented. Pinterest "pinning" and their webpage designs are, together, both protected. Partly by copyright and partly by patent.