found out about you

"You talkin' 'bout the Gin Blossoms' song?"

No, but that makes a great title for this post.

"How so, pray tell."

Well, remember back at the end of October last year, when the attorney let me know that the USPTO had denied the industrial patent on my invention?

"I most certainly do. The reviewer had been rather dismissive, going on and on for THIRTY-ONE PAGES, citing references to other works, but without disclosing their particulars. The reviewer had not even provided the papers for you to read. You had been very upset about it."

Of course I was. It had seemed to be a very personal attack on me. Fortunately, Mr. Cramer had assured me that receiving an initial rejection was part of the process and the objections given seemed fairly lightweight. He told me that it was very rare to have a rejection that rambled on for so many pages; he made it sound like that reviewer had been desperately picking at nits. He had crafted a reply and sent it in on Mama's birthday. I had taken that coincidence to be favorable.

"Of course! But it didn't turn out that way?"

No, it did not. That reviewer dismissed Mr. Cramer's reply, going on and on, again, and again for MORE THAN THIRTY PAGES, about these mystery papers that were not shared with us.

"I am so sorry to hear that. I know it was terribly disappointing."

Yes, it was, but I didn't collapse in tears this time. The rejection was a near duplicate of the one before, so I had already read them. The difference was the concluding remarks by the reviewer, in which I was invited to call for a phone conference.

"For real? You, specifically, were invited to call the reviewer directly and address their objections?"

It certainly read that way. I have a phone conference with Mr. Cramer for next Wednesday, so I'll ask him about it. I have to wonder how many inventors do such things. You know, speak one on one with the reviewer of their patent.

"Well, that would be new to me. I certainly had not heard of any such doings."

Yeah, neither have I... but I have looked into it. I did a search on the phone number provided in the rejection notice.

"And is it a general number at the USPTO? "

No, it is not. That phone number is direct to that reviewer, who is referred to as an Examiner in  Group 3710, in Art Unit 3715, in the Amusement and Entertainment Devices area, which includes Class 434 for Education and Demonstration.

"Woohoo! That's quite a bit of information! You go, girlfriend! "

Oh, but that's not all. The site also gave that reviewer's title - "Pat Examnr Elctrl Engrg" - and their boss's contact information. But here's the juiciest part: the Patent-Bots site gave the ranking of this reviewer compared to ALL OTHERS in their Group. In fact, the site provides the approval rating for all the reviewers in the Group, and probably for all reviewers in all Groups, at the USPTO.

"Wow. What a treasure trove of information you have unearthed."

Indeed. I fully intend to bring up this person's stats to Mr. Cramer and see if we can request a new reviewer. This person has almost the worst approval stats in their Group.

"Ack. I'm sorry your invention drew that one for judgement."

Yes, me, too, but at least I have a better understanding of how this one works. I look forward to talking with Mr. Cramer about the situation. I think it would be helpful to drop some of the claims listed for my invention. I'm going to try my hand at rewording those, too, to emphasize that the characters are permanently affixed, not detachable. One of the papers used for comparison speaks of a periodic table with detachable element fields, or so it sounds, and the examiner has the incorrect belief that mine is like that.

"I think that sounds like a good idea, for you to write up that section. But that might mean you need to rewrite the body of the application. "

I suspect that will be the case. We will see. First, though, is the need to speak with the attorney about options. He has a good history of seeing inventors through this process. I ran a check on his "approved patents" from 1-1-2019 to 3-31-2020 last year and he had 144 patents completed. Since then, he's helped 132 more to get approved.

"I wish you well with that. I'm glad you have him to help with your invention's journey through. What's the deadline for the reply to the reviewer? "

June 11th. I'm going to shoot for having it done well before my birthday.

"That sounds like a mighty fine game plan. I suggest you go ahead and start reading over the application and making changes now. Carpe diem!"

No time like the present!