March 22, 2017
Women inventors and scientists have made lasting contributions to our nation’s history, but why is it that many people are unable to name one female inventor, but can easily recall male inventors such as Thomas Edison or Albert Einstein?
Take one woman inventor for example. Actress Hedy Lamarr was best known for her work in Hollywood during MGM’s Golden Age, starring in such films as Ziegfeld Girl (1941), White Cargo (1942), and Samson and Delilah (1949). But Lamarr also worked with Hollywood composer George Antheil to invent and patent a frequency hopping technique that today is referenced as an important development in the field of wireless communications. Lamarr and Antheil’s frequency hopping reduced the risk of detection or jamming of radio-controlled torpedoes.
Commemorating Women’s History Month, and this year’s theme of “Honoring Trailblazing Women in Labor and Business,” the National Inventors Hall of Fame (NIHF), the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) long-time private sector partner, has developed an impressive display featuring women inventors in the atrium of the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA. The colorful pictorial exhibit highlights the accomplishments of ten innovative women for their breakthrough contributions and inspiration, empowering current and future generations of women and girls in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
In addition to inventors such as Hedy Lamar, the exhibit showcases women innovators of all ages, from Made by Girls Scholar Landri Drude, who participated in Camp Invention, to Elizabeth Beatie, who was a finalist in the Collegiate Inventors Competition. These women are vital role models and contributors to the fabric of American innovation and technology.
Read More on the Department of Commerce blog
March 17, 2017
The March 2017 patent prosecution lunch featured a discussion of a recent change to the deadline for requesting examination for a patent application in the United Kingdom (UK). In addition, a recent Federal Circuit case, Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, in which the Federal Circuit held that a petitioner lacked standing to an appeal an adverse final decision in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) was covered. A summary of a recent case concerning obviousness (In re van Os), which requires an examiner to provide a rationale behind a conclusion that a particular combination would have been “intuitive” in an obviousness rejection, was provided. The presentation may be downloaded here.
March 15, 2017
Join the USPTO Office of Innovation Development (OID) on Thursday, March 16 from 11 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ET for our Inventor Info Chat webinar, “How to Search and Why You Want To.”
Performing a search can help prevent a person from submitting an application with an invention that is already described in existing patents.
This presentation will cover such topics as:
• Prior art – what it is and why search for it
• Tools and resources available for searching
• Text and classification search strategies
• Understanding the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system and how to use it
Participation Link will be provided 24 hours before the program.
Register in advance to attend. For assistance, please contact email@example.com.
March 10, 2017
The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking nominations for the 2017 National Medal of Technology and Innovation. The medal is presented each year by the President of the United States and is this country’s highest award for technological achievement.
The medal is awarded annually to individuals, teams (up to four individuals), companies or divisions of companies for their outstanding contributions to America’s economic, environmental and social well-being. By highlighting the national importance of technological innovation, the medal also seeks to inspire future generations of Americans to prepare for and pursue technical careers to keep America at the forefront of global technology and economic leadership.
The USPTO administers the medal program on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. Detailed information about the requirements for submission of a nomination as well as a nomination form is available at NMTI Nominations. All completed nominations must be submitted to the USPTO by midnight (ET), April 7, 2017.
For more information about the process, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.
March 7, 2017
On March 23, 2017, there will be a free program at the Indianapolis Public Library (Central Library) on the Gender Gap in Patents followed by an educational training session to learn the basics about patents and the trademarks and what resources are available for you. Staff from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will be available to help answer your questions about your ideas and protecting your intellectual property.
You may register for the program here.
12:30 PM – 1:00 PM — Registration
1:10 PM – 2:00 PM — Keynote on Gender Gap in Patenting
2:00 PM – 3:00 PM —Winning Strategies: IP Overview: How to Get Started: A Focus on Patents
3:00 PM – 3:05 PM —Break
3:05 PM – 3:55 PM —A Focus on Customer Service—USPTO Programs and Web Resources
4:00 PM – 4:55 PM —Trademark and Branding Strategies
5:00 PM – 5:30 PM —Limited One on One Sessions
February 16, 2017
The February 2017 patent prosecution lunch featured a discussion of issues related to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Web-Based Issue Fee From (Web 85b). In addition, a recent case concerning university sovereign immunity to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings was discussed (Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc.). The latest USPTO patentable subject matter guidelines for business methods were also discussed. The presentation may be downloaded here.
January 19, 2017
The January 2017 patent prosecution lunch featured a discussion of the conclusion of the Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) Program and information concerning the relatively recent eMod Text Pilot Program. An update is provided as to the impact of Brexit on the European Unitary Patent and Unitary Patent Court (UPC) initiatives. Other presentation topics included potential changes in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) personnel in light of the upcoming presidential inauguration and recent deadline changes in India for placing the application in condition for grant. The presentation may be downloaded here.
January 19, 2017
The January patent prosecution practice luncheon included a discussion of highlights from 2016 Federal Circuit opinions that addressed the patentability of software inventions. Although the Federal Circuit continued its trend of invalidating most of the software patents it reviewed, several cases offered software patent holders new cause for optimism. The presentation can be downloaded here.
September 15, 2016
The September 2016 patent prosecution lunch featured a discussion of the new capability of obtaining copies of patent assignments online. Other topics included a discussion of the Financial Manager system now available at United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the future possibility of a new authentication option for EFS-Web and Private PAIR. In addition, the USPTO’s recent request for comments concerning leveraging electronic resources for retrieving information from other applications and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report concerning examiners’ time and attendance were discussed. There was also a discussion of a new European Union (EU) Court of Justice ruling (GS Media v. Sanoma) concerning hyperlinking to infringing copyrighted works. The presentation may be downloaded here.
August 24, 2016
Older Posts »
The August 2016 patent prosecution lunch featured a discussion of the new Automated Interview Request (AIR) program at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Other topics include a review of the new Authorization for Internet Communication form (PTO/SB/439) and recent changes to the Accelerated Examination program. The presentation concluded with a discussion of options and strategies for responding to Final Office Actions without having to resort to filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) by utilizing the Request for Pre-Appeal Brief Review, After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0),or Post Prosecution Pilot (P3) processes. The presentation may be downloaded here.