[Patentpractice] Am I losing my mind?

[Carl Oppedahl]

The Notice of Missing Parts that the original poster is talking about is 
not so much saying "you have to hand in the signed inventor's 
declaration right now" but is saying "sooner or later you are going to 
have to hand it in, but meanwhile you have to cough up the late fee".

On 5/22/2024 12:18 AM, Gerry J. Elman via Patentpractice wrote:
> Waitaminit.  Wasn't there a change several years ago permitting the 
> Inventor’s Declaration to be filed as late as the issue fee payment?
>
> What am I missing as to your scenario?
>
> -Gerry gerry at elman.com
> Gerry J. Elman, Elman IP
> 6117 St James Pl, Denton, TX 76210
> office ph. 610-892-9942   mobile 610-909-2468
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice 
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Date: 5/21/24 3:17 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice." <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Am I losing my mind?
>
> I wonder if you are getting the inventor declaration mixed up with the 
> certified copy of the priority application.
>
> When you file a CIP or divisional or continuation, you get a free pass 
> on having to provide a certified copy of the priority application, if 
> it was already provided in the parent case.  The Examiner is required 
> to go on a treasure hunt to see whether the certified copy can be 
> found in the parent case.
>
> There is no such free pass for inventor declarations.  Why it is 
> different for one thing and the other, I don't know.
>
> On 5/21/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Straussman via Patentpractice wrote:
>> 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/20240522/6d1d9b92/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240522/6d1d9b92/attachment.p7s>