Pandora wrote: Pandora wrote: Seems the patent application for the probe has been stymied by an examiner again. It got a Notice of Publication way back on June 24, 2021. It got it's first rejection on September 7, 2021. A lot of back and forth and arguments about the claims through 2021 and the first half of 2022 but ended with a final rejection on August 8, 2022. More discussion and debate in October 2022 and February 2023 culminating with another non-final rejection on February 28, 2023. It got resucitated in August 2023 with a request for an extension of time and new amendments to the claims for reconsideration. This appears to have ended once again with another final rejection as shown below. It seems no matter how hard they try the Inventor and the Examiner cannot come to terms on this. Whether it will be abandoned at this point or whether they will go another round is anybody's guess but it is at least grounded once again in the near term.
16/757,755 | 0822-053796:
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND/OR METHOD FOR POSITION TRACKING
Public view Attorney Docket #
0822-053796
Filing or 371 (c) date
04/20/2020
Status
Final Rejection Counted, Not Yet Mailed 10/22/2023
Details of the reaons for rejection of the probe patent have been posted today on the USPTO site.
In my humble opinion there definitely seems to be a lack of communication between the Inventor and the Examiner. The same reason's for rejection keep getting repeated. This is about the third time. I don't profess to be any kind of expert on patent application language but I do not understand why you can keep being told, what seems to be the same objections over and over again, and the changes don't happen. The Examiner(s) provide a phone number and suggest they are available to discuss all issues so if the two people are communicating on issues why do they not get resolved and changed to something acceptable by both? As I say, maybe I just don't understand.
To start off with there are 16 pages of other probe applications which have the same or similar components such as gyroscopes, accelerometers, sensors, magnetometers, and storage, so trying to justify why yours is a little different is a big hurdle.
Anyway they are given another 90 day window to address the issues and to resubmit. Around and round it goes, where and when it stops nobody knows. Is it important??
Maybe, just maybe, if the Inventor and the Examiner get together and address her issues line by line they will either end up at acceptance, or, not possible.
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND/OR METHOD FOR POSITION TRACKING
/ / /
Maria Christina Talty - Examiner
Joseph M Santos Rodriguez - Primary Examiner