RE:RE:Copied from another HPQ board Bernard refers here to Peter Pascali's interview (March 08, 2018) :
Q. An often-asked question is, how comfortable are you with the patent application?
A. The short answer is: very comfortable. PyroGenesis has never failed in obtaining a patent when we have applied for one, and we have extensive experience over many years doing so.
It is understandable that a person unfamiliar with our history, patents in general and the patent process specifically, may get hung up or side tracked by this question.
I answered this type of question once before, in another forum, by describing the players and the process. It basically works something like this: when one applies for a patent it behooves one to try and describe in as much detail what the patent can uniquely do and, at the same time, get the best coverage surrounding the patent claims. That is the role of one who applies for a patent.
The examiners role, on the other hand, is to challenge the patent and/or limit the claims. That is their role. Of note is that the examiner cannot be expected to be an expert in every field so oftentimes, the challenges are more of a “please explain why…” type of a challenge. We have faced on numerous occasions extremely negative comments from the examiner at the PCT level. This is quite common, and it has never prevented us from obtaining patents at the end of the day.
As I said, we feel very comfortable with the patent application and, without getting into specifics, we have a very well thought out and articulated patent and IP strategy regarding the PUREVAP™ technology. Just remember, this is a costly and time-consuming process and we don’t have either to waste. Rest assured, if we did not think we would succeed we wouldn’t waste our time or money. It’s not more complicated than that.
Read more at : https://www.stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2018/03/08/pyrogenesis-provides-update-on-its-purevap-project-with-hpq-silicon-resources EOM.