Re: Has a Great Invention Idea Gone Wrong ?

[JoeWaisman]

Re: Has a Great Invention Idea Gone Wrong ?

by JoeWaisman » Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:14 pm

JoeWaisman

Green Belt

 

Posts: 234

Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:10 pm

• Website

To add to what Roger said. It's too bad our current system has penalizes open communication. I did not post on this thread earlier, because I don't have anything to add to it. I suspect this is true of others too, and I hope you don't mistake this for limited interest. The details surrounding your project are unique, and it will be interesting to read whatever you choose to post.

Top

[Scrupulous]

Re: Has a Great Invention Idea Gone Wrong ?

by Scrupulous » Tue Feb 15, 2011 12:44 pm

Scrupulous

Black Belt

 

Posts: 2414

Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm

Location: United States

• Website

Gizmo, Not sure what the statement " If you wrote the info" means. Who else would write it? So, now that you have brought this up to the USPTO about the 2006 disclosure what is their next action, if any?
You wrote the disclosure was in 2007 in a post above and 2006 in this previous one. Which one was it?

Roger,When I talked to the USPTO today I gave them a scererio with dates. They didnt have a clue what the application number.or who the inventor was. After digging into the info more I figured out the yr was 2006.

I have protection on my idea so Im not worried about it to much. One thing I did figure out from all this is that once you disclose your invention you can want the 1 yr to file for a Provisional and have 2 yrs of protection until the need to file for a non-provisional. Ive never heard of that before,something just doesnt seem right with it.

That's about right. Not only that but, when it comes to on-sale/publication bars, the pending claim needs to be read upon by the prior art, element for element. So, an inventor may simply add a feature to the original concept later on, claim it, and it clears that bar. Sure, a question of obviousness might come up. But say if the added feature is the result of market research or product testing, then a good argument for non-obviousness can be made.

Top