Sep. 11th, 2021

I got one amendment on my Amended docket this week, and wrote an Office Action in response, so I’m back to having zero amendments.

I finished an Office Action on my oldest Regular New case early this week, and then finished an Office Action on a different Regular New application Friday evening; I was definitely hungry for my dinner by the time I was finished, so I ate, and treated myself to a small glass of tawny port with dessert, to celebrate making production for the biweek.
I was searching a case, maybe last week or a week or two before that, when I noticed a U.S. patent issued to a Saudi Arabian inventor. There are plenty of U.S. patents issued to Japanese, British, Korean, French, German, and Israeli inventors, but Saudis are uncommon.

In addition to rejecting claims as anticipated by, or obvious over, the prior art, we object to informalities in language. I had occasion to look up an Office Action I had written some ago in a related case, and saw that I had objected to a clause beginning with the word “which”, saying that it was ungrammatical, although it might have been considered correct in the eighteenth century. The usage was along the lines of “I have read Master and Commander, which it’s a novel about a Royal Navy officer and a physician during the Napoleonic Wars.” This not being the eighteenth century, I suggested a more standard “wherein” clause.

Profile

ndrosen

March 2026

S M T W T F S
1234 56 7
89101112 13 14
15161718 19 2021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 23rd, 2026 03:45 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios