[Patentpractice] Am I losing my mind?

[Richard Straussman]

The dec in the parent was filed about 8 months ago.

*Richard Straussman**
* *Senior Counsel*
* Registered Patent Attorney
* Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
*. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
*Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
*Intellectual Property Law*
425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401 (PLEASE NOTE THE SUITE CHANGE)
Roseland, NJ 07068
*direct line* 973.403.9943
*main* 973.403.9940
*fax*973.403.9944
*e-mail*rstraussman at weitzmanip.com

*http://www.weitzmanip.com
*



On 5/21/2024 1:30 PM, Randall Svihla via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> Yes, they will reject old declarations if they don't have the current 
> language in them.Always fun to get a new one when the original one was 
> filed 15 years ago.
>
> *From:*Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2024 1:24 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Timothy Snowden <Timothy at thompsonpatentlaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Am I losing my mind?
>
> I can't answer that with citations because we always just copied 
> declarations and re-filed them ... however, I can say we recently 
> started having declarations rejected in Continuations where the 
> original application used an old USPTO declaration form, because the 
> old USPTO form didn't expressly say that the inventor authorized the 
> application to be filed...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on 
> behalf of Richard Straussman via Patentpractice 
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2024 12:08 PM
> *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com 
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Richard Straussman <rstraussman at weitzmanip.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] Am I losing my mind?
>
> All,
>
>     I filed a continuation (not a CIP or divisional) off of an allowed 
> parent application.  We did not file a copy of the declaration from 
> the parent application, as I have never done so before.  We have now 
> received a Notice of Missing Parts because no declaration was filed 
> with the application.  I know that we can file it per MPEP 602.05 (and 
> maybe it is better practice to do so), but I am not aware of a 
> requirement in that regard.  Am I wrong?  Or is the PTO entirely off base?
>
>     Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> *Richard Straussman**
> **Senior Counsel**
> **Registered Patent Attorney**
> *Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
> *. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
> *Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
> *Intellectual Property Law*
> 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401 (PLEASE NOTE THE SUITE CHANGE)
> Roseland, NJ 07068
> *direct line*973.403.9943
> *main*973.403.9940
> *fax*973.403.9944
> *e-mail*_rstraussman at weitzmanip.com_
>
> *_http://www.weitzmanip.com
> _*
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240521/1c189e8d/attachment.html>