This tidbit comes from the US Patent and Trademark Office?"... from the Licences and Review Department..."
In the USA, we spell it "Licenses", not the UK (mis-) spelling. Is the USPTO too poor to afford spell checking on their computer systems?
This tidbit comes from the US Patent and Trademark Office?"... from the Licences and Review Department..."
INPADOC legal status: EP2259998 (A1) ― 2010-12-15
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CARRYING OUT NICKEL AND HYDROGEN EXOTHERMAL REACTIONS
The EPO does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of data and information originating from other authorities than the EPO; in particular, the EPO does not guarantee that they are complete, up-to-date or fit for specific purposes.
Legal status of EP2259998 (A1) 2010-12-15:
EP F 08873805 A (Patent of invention)
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : 17P
Code Expl.: + REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION FILED
EFFECTIVE DATE : 20100916
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : AK
Code Expl.: + DESIGNATED CONTRACTING STATES:
KD OF CORRESP. PAT. : A1
DESIGNATED COUNTR. : AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI SK TR
PRS Date : 2010/12/15
PRS Code : AX
Code Expl.: + EXTENSION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT TO
CONCERNED COUNTRIES : AL BA MK RS
PRS Date : 2011/07/13
PRS Code : DAX
Code Expl.: EXTENSION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT TO (DELETED)
PRS Date : 2012/03/14
PRS Code : RAP1
Code Expl.: TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF AN EP APPLICATION
NEW OWNER : LEONARDO CORPORATION
PRS Date : 2012/11/21
PRS Code : 17Q
Code Expl.: + FIRST EXAMINATION REPORT
EFFECTIVE DATE : 20121019
Keep the charade going. There is a sucker born every minute and some of them were born yesterday.Asterix wrote:Chris, you seem to be the expert here. What do you make of this application? Given the lack of detail, it's sure to be rejected. So what's the point in filing?
It's hopeless.Asterix wrote:Chris, you seem to be the expert here. What do you make of this application? Given the lack of detail, it's sure to be rejected. So what's the point in filing?
The way patents are supposed to work, a standard apparently not well upheld these days, the patent application must include sufficient detail for a practitioner of the art to implement. There also used to be a requirement that the claimed invention had actually been implemented.ScottL wrote:So I'm interpretting this as he has ~75 (I guess 72 now) days to formally state how all this works, why it works, with corresponding numbers to back it up. IE: all the secrets must be divulged? Asking for clarification.