Chemical and pharmaceutical companies protect their investment in development and research and the future of the companies by securing patents on the inventions. Patents enable you to resist competition. Success or failure of the company often depends on the strength of the patent and the longer the phrase of the patent, the greater will be its value. A Inventhelp Stories is one that defines your invention broadly and but concurrently builds in fallback narrow invention.
The Usa Patent and Trademark Office receives thousands and thousands of patent applications every year. Actually, the Patent Office has proposed new patent rules to alleviate the Examiner workload. Based on one proposed rule, when a patent application is rejected, in order to present your case again, the patent applicant is going to be limited to filing one ask for continued examination (or RCE). In light of the newest rule, unless the patent applicant masters the complexities of patent law, the applicant might get a weak patent rather than a strong one.
Imagine you have filed a patent application in which you have defined your invention broadly along with narrowly in ten succinct sentences with what are known as patent claims. These patent claims will likely be numbered 1 through 10. Typically claim 1 will represent the invention of the broadest scope, as well as the higher numbered claims represent fallback narrow inventions. Within our hypothetical, claims 2 to 10 will refer returning to claim 1. Thus, claim 2 refers back to claim 1. Claim 4 refers back to claim 3, which refers back to claim 2. Claim 5 refers to claim 1 or claim 4. Within this example, say claim 5 refers to claim 1. Remember that the better variety of fallback claims you might have, there is a better probability of winning the lawsuit in the event that your competitor challenges your patent.
Now believe that the Examiner rejects the patent, as it often happens, stating that the invention is not new or is simply a minor modification of the things is well known already. You, as patent applicant, have a chance to answer the Examiner. You present arguments stating why the invention is totally new rather than obvious and why you need to granted Invention Ideas. The Examiner rejects your argument. Now, to continue your effort to acquire a patent, you wish to present new arguments. To do this, you may have to file an RCE (as well as the fee) combined with the new arguments.
The Examiner takes it again. Now, the Examiner softens just a little and says, in a non-final rejection, that invention of claims 4 to 10 would be allowable being a patent if you rewrite claim 4 without a reference to claim 1, but will continue to reject the broader invention of claims 1, 2, and three. You now have a choice of taking just what the Examiner gave you, that is, claims 4 to 10 or alternatively, argue even more. You want to argue. The Examiner finally rejected your application, repeating what he explained before, which is, claim 4 onwards will be allowable if you rewrite it as a indicated before. Now, the options you may have are very limited. It is possible to rewrite claim 4 as the Examiner indicated, as new claim 1, and acquire a patent with new claim 1. However, you will be unable to obtain a patent with claims five to ten.
The Examiner would refuse to grant claim 5 to 10 because he will say that claim 5 has been changed in its scope even when you did not modify the wording from the claim. The Examiner will argue that original claim 5 referred returning to original claim 1. Now, claim 5 refers back to new claim 1, that is of a different scope. The Examiner would indicate that, as the scope from the claim is different, he would have to carry out further search and examination on claims five to ten. He would state that the patent law would not allow him to do so since iqpzlk rejection continues to be made final already. The only method to have the Examiner moving forward this would be if you could file an RCE. However, you have already consumed your RCE option. You can not file another RCE now, and therefore, you are unable to get claims 5-10. You will get a patent with just one claim. If the infringer challenges your patent, and proves that your particular only claim is invalid, Patent Invention would be trashed.
If you had rewritten claim 4 (as new claim 1) when addressing the non-final rejection, rather than when addressing the final rejection as you did, patent law could have allowed the Examiner to undertake further browse claims 5 to 10, and the probability of getting those claims might have been favorable. If you have fallback position of claims five to ten also, you will have a greater probability of winning the case.