4 ms·
The premise of this article that patent attorneys wear down patent examiners through dragging on prosecution by continually responding to office action rejectio
by gyc 13y ago
The premise of this article that patent attorneys wear down patent examiners through dragging on prosecution by continually responding to office action rejections is nonsense. In fact it's just the opposite. Patent examiners would love to see the same patent application over and over because they will already be familiar with the subject matter and will have a pretty good idea of the art in that field from having already examined the applications before. Plus the patent examiner is allotted extra time to examine the application each time an RCE or continuation is filed to extend prosecution. So seeing the same patent application over actually helps the examiner to more easily meet his production requirements.
- lisper 13y agoIt is not nonsense. I myself have received two patents (out of five total) using exactly this method. One of these patents is for a device that sends information faster than light (US Patent 7126691), so it plainly should never have issued. (I prosecuted this patent specifically to test the theory that one could patent anything using this method.)
- gyc 13y agoAccording to PAIR, your patent was allowed after you responded to the first non-final office action. So no you did not use the method set out in the article of wearing down the examiner by continually filing continuations to get a yes.
- Dylan16807 13y agoDoes it really matter which method of resending the same patent was used to get something invalid granted?
- lisper 13y agoFiling official actions is not the only way to wear down an examiner's resolve. And does it really invalidate my point that it only took me two iterations instead of N to obtain a patent on a device that violates the laws of physics?