The method for patenting an invention is relatively simple. An inventor recordsdata a document, a 'patent utility,' with the patent office that describes an revolutionary product or process. An 'examiner' at the patent office then determines whether or not or not the invention described in the patent application is 'new and useful.' If so, the examiner 'permits' the patent application and the inventor is 'granted' a patent.

The most circuitous patenting path begins with the filing of a provisional patent application, or simply a 'provisional.' This doc is healthier characterised as a precedence doc versus a patent utility because the U.S. patent office does nothing more than obtain and document the filing. The contents of a provisional will not be examined for patentability. As a substitute, the patent office makes use of the provisional as proof that an inventor was in possession of a given invention by a particular date.

The costs for preparing and submitting a provisional application are typically decrease than these for a utility application. Moreover, a provisional does not commit the inventor to a full-blown patent prosecution. Due to this fact, inventors often use a provisional submitting as an expedient and cost-environment friendly mechanism to preserve patent rights whereas publicly disclosing an invention.

Public disclosures of an invention may be essential to be able to gauge market interest, solicit investor capital, negotiate joint ventures, have interaction in licensing applications, retain technical expertise to refine a design, etc. A filed provisional application enables an inventor to place third events on discover that exclusive rights to an modern product or process have already been reserved. Additionally, many commercially vital jurisdictions, such as the European Union, require an invention to have 'absolute novelty.' Public disclosures of an invention with out at the very least a filed provisional can destroy 'absolute novelty' and bar an inventor from acquiring patent rights in these jurisdictions.

Whether or not a provisional application was filed, the formal patent course of begins with the preparation and filing of a utility application. A utility patent software often has three sections: (a) drawings, (b) a written specification, and (c) claims. Collectively, these sections describe the technical options of an invention and outline the aspects which might be thought-about to be proprietary.

There are important factors that every inventor ought to bear in mind about a utility patent application.

First, it is inventions ideas the claims and only the claims that outline patent rights. Merely illustrating a design in the drawings or describing a process in the written specification will not be sufficient to acquire patent protection. Reasonably, the claims should expressly define the design or process by identifying the important technical options or 'limitations.' Typically speaking, a patent claim is a one-sentence description of the invention. A patent claim begins with a 'preamble,' which units the context of the invention, and then a list of the features (or limitations) that outline the invention. Imprecise drafting of declare language could result in a patent not offering the scope of legal protection desired by the inventor.

Second, the patent office forbids an inventor from adding technical details to a filed patent application. Often, the patent office will uncover patent paperwork or different publications that have been previously unknown to the inventor. The patent office can rely on these documents to show that the patent software did not disclose an innovation that is sufficiently distinct from what's already available. The primary way to counter the patent office's conclusion is to point to the technical options which can be unique to the described invention. However, these technical options should seem in the software as initially filed. Therefore, an inventor must be sure that a patent utility fully describes all essential points of an invention earlier than submitting a patent application with the patent office.

As soon as filed, the patent office initiates an examination course of whereby the claims of the patent utility are in contrast towards the 'prior art.' Mostly, the prior artwork includes patent references, industry publications, and different printed works that have been available before the filing date of the utility application. Nevertheless, if a provisional software was filed, then the utility software can 'take precedence' from the provisional software filing date for any subject material that is in common between the provisional software and the utility application.

Usually talking, the patent office makes a willpower, which is communicated in an 'office motion,' as to whether or not the claims of the utility software are sufficiently completely different from the prior art. The patent office rejects any claim that they conclude encompasses the 'teachings' of the prior art and/or that's not sufficiently distinct from the prior art.

In a few rare cases, the patent office permits all claims within the first office action. In most cases, however, one or more of the claims are rejected. The inventor has the chance to reply to the office action. Within the reply, the inventor can present arguments as to why the patent office's conclusions are incorrect and also, if needed, 'amend' the claims to clarify the technical differences vis-à-vis the prior art. If the patent office finds the reply to be persuasive, the patent office can 'enable' the patent application. If not, the patent office mails a 'closing office action' and 'closes' prosecution. Options are few at this point. If any declare is allowed, the inventor can settle for that claim. Nonetheless, if no claims are allowed, the inventor is normally left with three selections: (1) quit and abandon the patent application, (2) attraction the rejection of the claim(s), or (3) request continued examination (RCE).

This alternate of office actions and office action replies can eat years. Moreover, the associated patent fees and lawyer fees may ultimately eclipse those for preparing and filing the patent utility itself. Sadly, there is no assure that the patent office will grant a patent even after an inventor has made the perfect case possible for an invention. Therefore, the decision to patent an invention should not be taken lightly.