Old/Old Patent Applications

I received a note from a patent examiner regarding my estimate that there are now around 400 pre-URAA applications still pending at the USPTO.  According to the examiner, the actual number of still-pending applications is 216 (excluding applications being held under a secrecy order).  All of these applications have been pending since 1995 and, upon issue, will still have 17–years of patent term remaining.

This is now a miniscule number compared with the 1.2 million applications pending at the USPTO.  On the other hand, all of these applications are likely quite valuable.

See “New/Old Patents

 

25 thoughts on “Old/Old Patent Applications

  1. Gotcha “Sarah.”

    Since the post office you’re referring to was closed over two years ago, we all now know you are in fact computer generated.

    Next.

  2. Oh it is based on the filing date of the specific application and not the effective filing date. I see. That is something I learned new today.

    You’re welcome.

  3. Dennis said “On the other hand, all of these applications are likely quite valuable.” In all reality, many are (likely?) by the very same unnamed inventor

  4. I am compelled to mention that it is not a Touring test. It is a Turing test. Named after Alan Turing. If it was patented it would be an old act patent for sure, as I think he came up with it in the 1950′s or something. I just checked Wikipedia. It was 1950.

  5. “Curious you may be right about that, and I have passed.”

    No, you haven’t. The fact that I have wondered whether your collection or words are computer-generated or generated from a (completely-twisted) human mind means that I have not identified you as human — only possibly human.

    BTW — if you are a human, then you must write for Zippy the Pinhead.

  6. You see I have learned to listen more also. And this morning was no different.And then after i made my almost daily tour to the Post Office I noticed it was just more of the same. And trying to stretch it to a 3 year circular holding pattern was evident. But I said nothing I just knew I had estoppel after reading a particular rule. It is a shame that I had a lot to give to this Country, and all you got was a Curtain Rod Bracket which I believe I will get back. And control of a Fender. And when you look back on this you will see that you may have Boxed me up and destroyed my Life… But HEYYYYYY back at yah
    Touche’

  7. Curious you may be right about that, and I have passed.
    Taking advantage of someone while being in a Box, says you are a BULLY! But now so much for that. And by the way, that letter I sent to NH obviously was pulled out of the mail. But the address I was given to send in re: of NH was miles away? I knew that was going to be something that was also on tour. So when I got the other letter that has all the same Data in it, I just put it in my Circular File without opening it. So now it too will go on Tour, really! We head bangers live and learn.

  8. Lets hope this is posted.
    I am the Person that is being denied my Rights to a hearing. So come Monday if I don’t get some answers form the Egans and the Strouds and the Lewis’s and the McMillans/ Grays’ I will free myself to speak to the DOJ.
    “ESTOPPEL”

  9. 6, that’s not quite right either.

    It is based on the earliest claimed US 111(a) or international filing date per 120/121/365(c) as opposed to and internal or Paris Convention priority filing whose benefit is claimed under 119/365(a) or (b).

  10. Oh it is based on the filing date of the specific application and not the effective filing date. I see. That is something I learned new today.

  11. The word you’re looking for is “pore,” not “pour,” you poor thing.

    The 1995 transition from 17-years-from-issue to 20-years-from-priority is based on the filing date of the application, not its priority date. There’s no real reason for you to care, given your current job.

  12. I don’t know about your ancient lawls concerning cons etc MM. That sht was done and over with by the time I entered the arena and I have had no need to go back and pour over all that old stuff on this topic.

  13. “Can’t they just file another CON?”

    Think really hard about it, and then the answer might come to you. I expected better from you.

  14. Only 216 true [unlimited term] “submarines” left [outside of secrecy orders] if that is the case, is real progress.
    I wonder how many are applications stuck in civil case appeals of interference decisions [i.e., stuck on the dockets of D.C. judges who [understandably] don’t want to deal with interferences? It certainly wouldn’t hurt for the PTO to send status inquiry letters explaining that the delays are greatly extending the patent terms of involved patent applications. [Not that that kind of personal initiative would be typical of many PTO employees other than Kappos.]

  15. No excuse for the PTO to not resolve at least 90% of those applications by the end of this calendar year.

Comments are closed.