@ED….welcome to the world of BS & politics. ….I knew this AIA was going to be a bad deal from day one……..

The small novice Inventor’s voice wasnt taken into consideration…….

Where are the micro entity fees? The legislation says that they are to be enacted within 60 days (perhaps 30) from the signing of the legislation. I have been told by the USPTO that it will be at least 18 months? How can that be?

[Clean Thought Edit…]

Please forgive my spelling. The word was accomplice(s), not accomplish(es).

Anywho with these ‘advocates’ who needs enemies. What a joke!

Hmmmm… Nice Luis,
Very tempting to get into this. Keep it out in the open just like you are doing.

Luis wrote "I am not going to call anybody. This is a public issue. A very public issue. It is not personal. I don’t need any of your explanations in private. If you have them, just post tem in public.

Let us just be clear, transparent and public about this very public issue.

I love it! What search did you get your G8 in?

@ Luis ,,,,,you forgot to add Mr Anthony High to his multiple profiles……

FYI,

September 27, 2011

USPTO Updates Fee Schedule, But Does Not Yet Offer Micro Entity Discount

By Donald Zuhn —

In anticipation of yesterday’s implementation of the 15% surcharge on certain patent fees pursuant to § 11 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a press release and Federal Register notice (76 Fed. Reg. 59115) last week regarding the patent fees changes. In the Federal Register notice, the Office indicated that a revised fee schedule had been made available (as we noted last week), and that the revised fee schedule included the 15% surcharge, prioritized examination fee, and additional fee for applications not filed electronically that are set forth in the AIA (the latter fee does not take effect until November 15, 2011). The Office’s press release indicates that “[a]t this time the USPTO may not offer the micro entity discount (75%) on any fees.” The Office notes that “these fees will be adjusted under the fee setting authority provided for in Section 10 of the AIA,” and that “[o]nce the USPTO sets these new fees, it is anticipated that the new fees will include a 50% reduction for small entities and a 75% reduction for micro entities for ‘filing, searching, examining, issuing, appealing, and maintaining patent applications and patents.’” Thus, applicants should note that while the establishment of micro entities took effect on the date of enactment of the AIA, the 75% reduction in fees afforded to such micro entities must await the Office’s fees rulemaking.

DOUBLEU DOUBLE DOUBLEU .patentdocs.org/2011/09/uspto-updates-fee-schedule-but-does-not-offer-micro-entity-discount.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PatentDocs+%28Patent+Docs%29

No, Sir. Do not confuse clarity and conviction with emotion. The only emotion here is a total despise for BS rethorics or condescending tones.

I am not going to call anybody. This is a public issue. A very public issue. It is not personal. I don’t need any of your explanations in private. If you have them, just post tem in public.

Let us just be clear, transparent and public about this very public issue.

Obviously this is a very emotional issue for you Luis, and I would be happy to discuss your thoughts with you if you would like to call my office at (202) 857-9730. Simply ask for Mark Reyland, and I’ll be happy to explain some of the things about this industry you may not be aware of.

In fact, that goes for everyone here. You are free to contact me any time you like if you have questions about what you have read, (regarding me or inventing) what you have heard, or how some of these issues effect you as inventors.

The nerve!

What is it that compels people to try to get out of any uncomfortable situation with a load of it?

And with such an ‘indignant’ tone. Just be honest about it. Do what you have to do and stop claiming that you are ‘helping’ when your inactions are actually harming a great deal. And worse yet, defending and justifying the entities that disservice our interests makes you an accomplish.

That is not the ‘representation’ that i am interested in. Please do not represent me that way.

Let’s just be clear. We need to understand the issues. And the issues are very clear. And we need to care. Genuinely care.

I’m telling you.

WE ARE IN TROUBLE

What a nerve this person has! “Passing laws”

No laws need to be passed. All that needs to be done is stop messing with the supreme law of them all:

The constitution

Again:

Not only we have no advocacy whatsoever in the diversion of funds issue, but in fact we have to fear the purported “representants” to be accomplishes of this travesty.

I stand by it. I stand 100% by it.

Now I am indeed worried.

Not only we have no advocacy whatsoever in the diversion of funds issue, but in fact we have to fear the purported “representants” to be accomplishes of this travesty.

If you are going to address me, as you did, personally (BTW, it is Luis, not Lewis), please do it under your own name. Don’t hide behind any anonimous shields.

And please, leave “Concerned Citizen”, “Sexxdxy Beast” “Johny Whomever” and all those characters in the retirement they belong.

Oftentimes truth has the power to be insulting. When it happens, it is a great thing.

So I celebrate that you are insulted.

Well we should start by getting some facts straight – Congress didn’t delete the part of the bill that would give the USPTO access to its own funds, they simply created an “escrow” style account for the money and a process for the USPTO to request it. Although not as nice as a direct deposit, it’s a far cry from the previous system – and the direct result of a compromise effort between the house and senate.

As for representing you – I speak on behalf of the HUNDREDS of dedicated people at the USPTO, The UIA, Congress and other organizations that work every day to create the education, implement the programs, and pass the laws that help you as an inventor.

Your broad brush statement of non support is not only inaccurate Lewis, but insulting.

Q: Who is going to lobby for us?

A: Nobody.

This is not a mainstream issue. Therefore, it is not an electoral issue.

This is not a cause that will be embraced by Michael Moore or Ralph Nader. Or O’reilly or Jon Stewart. Nobody, not even Inventors or Inventors Associations or inventors media seem to care one bit. Congress takes the money that we pay, give it to somebody else, and we do not get the service that we pay for. At least with the diligence and celerity mandated by the US constitution.

We have inventors, We have Inventors Associations, We have Inventors publications, Inventors Radio programs, Inventors TV shows, Inventors clubs, Inventors websites, Inventors Newsletters, Inventors Newsgroups, Technology Transfer institutions at Universities but nobody denounces publicly the #1 enemy of the progress of the useful arts: The USPTO (under Conregss sponsorship) in flagrant violation of the US Constitution. Somebody even tried to ridicule my little efforts on these forums, comparing them to Jesse Ventura’s theories of conspiracies.

The reason Congress continues to take our money for other purposes is because immunity seems to be guaranteed.

Is it?

Milk cow!

I just wanted to repost a part of your post, Don.

Congress deleted the part of the Patent Reform bill that would more sufficiently fund USPTO’s operations by giving it access to all of its revenue collections.

This is the crux of all the PTO problems. Congress is undermining the US constitution. They are obligated to promote Innovation and the progress of the useful arts. They do the opposite. The diversion of funds is unconstitutional. It is that simple.

This type of irresponsibility, so common at all Government and (Big) corporate levels is what has displaced our country from a leading position it once had. So sad.

A milking cow. That is what the PTO is.

Scott
Good to see you’re optimistic about your patenting prospects. The new law has had no influence as yet on patent pendency. I think we can see patent pendency increase..at least for awhile. The new legislation heaps a lot more on the USPTO Director’s shoulders. Unfortunately, Congress deleted the part of the Patent Reform bill that would more sufficiently fund USPTO’s operations by giving it access to all of its revenue collections.

By the way, contrary to your understanding, the USPTO’s intent is not to prevent patent grants, but rather is to grant patents for novel and non-obvious inventions. Also, the USPTO does not review or comment on possible infringements. That is not within their jurisdiction. So, readers should take note that a granted patent is, in no sense, an idication that working your patent will not infringe the rights of other patentees.

I’m curious about the basis of your opening line: “USPTO is moving right along.” I wish that were the case, although there are indications the Office is being more pro-active in granting patents than in the previous Administration. But, in reality, USPTO examiners still are swamped. For example, if you look at your own patent pendency records over the past 4 years since you filed the first of your two patent applicationn, I’ll bet a cup of coffee you’ll find each of your applications was pending almost precisely 29 months before receiving a USPTO First Office Action on the Merits (FAOM – addressing patentability of claims).

Best of luck w/ patent #2. Keep inventing.