Comments on: Q) Costa Rica and Sweeden – PCT (1800) http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/ Patent Bar Review and Study Guide Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tomodachi http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-17648 Tomodachi Sat, 15 Oct 2011 05:33:53 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-17648 Thanks maggie! Thanks maggie!

]]> By: MIA http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-16071 MIA Mon, 19 Sep 2011 18:52:50 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-16071 Thank you maggie for that posting!! Thank you maggie for that posting!!

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-15792 maggie Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:53:29 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-15792 Q14A) Costa Rica + Sweden variants All three inventors from Sweden file a IA in a USRO on Jan 4, 2004 (*Non Us residents) with English translation and necessary documents. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application? 1) wont get a filing date b/c US/RO is not competent (due to applicant lack of citizenship) and they wont get a filing date. 2) although the US/RO may be incompetent, they will forward to US/RO. (3) App will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO. Answer (3) checked at PTO VA --will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO. Q14A) Costa Rica + Sweden variants
All three inventors from Sweden file a IA in a USRO on Jan 4, 2004 (*Non Us residents) with English translation and necessary documents. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application?
1) wont get a filing date b/c US/RO is not competent (due to applicant lack of citizenship) and they wont get a filing date.
2) although the US/RO may be incompetent, they will forward to US/RO.
(3) App will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO.

Answer (3) checked at PTO VA –will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO.

]]> By: maggie http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-15791 maggie Wed, 14 Sep 2011 20:51:31 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-15791 Collected from Old posts and my own test Q14 A) Costa Rica + Sweden variants All three inventors from Sweden file a IA in a USRO on Jan 4,2004 (*Non Us residents) with English translation and necessary documents. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application? All three applicants were From Sweden and not citizens of the US. But had application written in English. (1) Wont get a filing date b/c US/RO is not competent (due to applicant lack of citizenship) and they wont get a filing date. Q14B) Mexican PCT variant -- Two Mexican inventors and one US national inventor, and a corporation that is a US resident file an IA application in Spanish language at USPTO. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application? (1) Although the US/RO may be incompetent, they will forward to US/RO. (2) App will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO. Collected from Old posts and my own test

Q14 A) Costa Rica + Sweden variants
All three inventors from Sweden file a IA in a USRO on Jan 4,2004 (*Non Us residents) with English translation and necessary documents. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application?
All three applicants were From Sweden and not citizens of the US. But had application written in English.
(1) Wont get a filing date b/c US/RO is not competent (due to applicant lack of citizenship) and they wont get a filing date.

Q14B) Mexican PCT variant –
Two Mexican inventors and one US national inventor, and a corporation that is a US resident file an IA application in Spanish language at USPTO. Q Is the USRO competent? Q What will they do with the application?
(1) Although the US/RO may be incompetent, they will forward to US/RO.
(2) App will be forwarded to IB/RO and given date which it was received at US/RO.

]]> By: Bob http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13942 Bob Wed, 03 Aug 2011 06:00:08 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13942 Variant on 8/2/11 Variant on 8/2/11

]]> By: giaps2 http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13686 giaps2 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 00:09:33 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13686 Saw this question or a variant on 07/25/11. One or all of the inventors was competent to file with the US/RO but it wasn't in English. Saw this question or a variant on 07/25/11. One or all of the inventors was competent to file with the US/RO but it wasn’t in English.

]]> By: Patfield http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13118 Patfield Wed, 06 Jul 2011 19:59:16 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-13118 Definitely Read the very first intro chapter of MPEP 1800 ...1801. It is a great review for those familiar and a good first read for those just starting out. It is also where the answers to these questions come from. Definitely Read the very first intro chapter of MPEP 1800 …1801.

It is a great review for those familiar and a good first read for those just starting out.

It is also where the answers to these questions come from.

]]> By: Bigbadvoododaddy http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-12782 Bigbadvoododaddy Sat, 02 Jul 2011 20:49:22 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-12782 confirmed confirmed

]]> By: Freds http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-11728 Freds Tue, 31 May 2011 06:05:57 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-11728 Supreme Court in Citizen United said Corp is a person, but I don't think the USSC controls PTO. PTO answers to no except the president! j/k The last part of the language is really confusing. "For the purpose of designating ..." Is applying an IA for the purpose of designating ...? I don't think so. Supreme Court in Citizen United said Corp is a person, but I don’t think the USSC controls PTO. PTO answers to no except the president! j/k

The last part of the language is really confusing. “For the purpose of designating …” Is applying an IA for the purpose of designating …? I don’t think so.

]]> By: Overworkked http://mypatentbar.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-9920 Overworkked Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:46:59 +0000 http://patentbar.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/question-2011-pct-and-102e-dates/#comment-9920 MPEP 1805, CFR 1.421 and PCT 59.3 all point to the Mexican fact pattern getting FD on date filed with USRO and then forwarded for processing. MPEP 1805, CFR 1.421 and PCT 59.3 all point to the Mexican fact pattern getting FD on date filed with USRO and then forwarded for processing.

]]>