Timo esser test tone generator evaluation vs paid version

Timo esser test tone generator evaluation vs paid version how to#
Timo esser test tone generator evaluation vs paid version trial#

Really, if you wantto improve quality, the first thing that needs to be done (at least by the examiner вЂ“ I wonвЂ™t omment on things that applicant can do to help out) is:

Proposal 6: In-Person Interview Capability with All Examiners вЂ“ The USPTO is considering expanding the locations for conducting in-person interviews вЂ“ is this a good idea and how might it work?.

Are the better mechanisms toВ more quickly and easilyВ get to a resolution of a valid patent being issued or вЂ“ if not вЂ“ the application being abandoned.

Timo esser test tone generator evaluation vs paid version trial#

Proposal 5 вЂ“ Review of Current Compact Prosecution Model and the Effect on Quality: The USPTO is considering the current вЂњcompact prosecution modelвЂќ and is particularly concerned that so many cases result in eitherВ anВ RCE (Request for Continued Examination) or appeal to the PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board).

Timo esser test tone generator evaluation vs paid version how to#

Proposal 4 вЂ“ Review of and Improvements to Quality Metrics: A major question is the meaning of a вЂњquality patentвЂќ and then вЂ“ how to measure that quality in order to judge both the system and USPTO examiner performance.

More detailed information would includeВ the prosecution history documents created in machine-readable form. However, the reality is that patents today are born-digital and with several hundred thousand new patents issuing each year, these patents should be better designed and configured in a way to facilitate automated machine access (rather than PAIR image files).В This includes very simple information such as patent expiry date whether the patent is a post-AIA patent the patentвЂ™s effective filing date and original priority document reasons for allowance and a summary ofВ rejections made during prosecution. In many ways, issued patents are still designed around the notion that they are paper documents that can be converted into a machine-readable-form. For me, there should be an increased amount of information from the prosecution record that is available in machine-readable form. Proposal 3 вЂ“ Clarity of Record: The USPTO is looking for input on ways to вЂњenhance the clarity and completenessвЂќ of the prosecution record.To accomplish this, the USPTO will need to develop IT tools that better allow for internal searching of these submitted documents (including non-patent prior art). A better approach вЂ“ in my view вЂ“ is that the USPTO examiners should rely first on the submitted prior art references as guiding their search - those submitted references will be a better guide to the closestВ prior art than any automated search. One idea is to automate a pre-examination search. Proposal 2 вЂ“ Automated Pre-Examination Search: The USPTO is looking for new tools that would cheaply provide the examiner with a set of starting-points for the examination process.Thus, an applicant who receives a very low quality office action would be able to seek review in this more informal manner without appeal or RCE. Proposal 1 вЂ“ Requests for Quality Review: The USPTO proposes that applicants be permitted to request quality review by the OPQA (Office of Patent Quality Assurance) for particular applications.ViaВ its Federal Register notice, the USPTO is also seeking written comments on the proposals.

I will be participating in the Summit that looks to offer a highly-interactive experience where all attendees will have theВ opportunity to be heard. These will serve as focal-points for the March 25-26 Patent Quality Summit hosted at the USPTOвЂ™s Arlington HQ. As part of its patent quality initiative, the USPTO has offered six proposals for comment and discussion.