Xforce Keygen Inventor Professional 2006

Why was the Industrial Revolution successful at generating sustained growth? Some have argued that there was a fundamental change in the way that new technology was developed during this period, but evidence for this argument remains largely anecdotal. This paper provides direct quantitative evidence showing that how innovation and design work was done changed fundamentally during the Industrial Revolution. This change was characterized by the professionalization of innovation and design work through the emergence of the engineering profession. I also propose a theory describing how this change could have acted as one mechanism behind the transition to modern economic growth.

Knowing the internal volume of an object can help designers optimize its functionality and performance. If you need to determine the amount of space within an object that can be filled with liquid or gas, finding the internal volume using Autodesk Inventor is an essential feature. This tool can be useful for a variety of professionals such as manufacturers, engineers, and architects.

Download Zip 🔥 https://urluso.com/2y1GuA 🔥

Inventor CAD software provides professional-grade 3D mechanical design, documentation, and product simulation tools. Work efficiently with a powerful blend of parametric, direct, freeform, and rules-based design capabilities.

Dr. Lonnie Johnson, holder of more than 100 U.S. patents, spacecraft systems designer, energy innovator, and inventor of the Super Soaker, joined USPTO Director Andrei Iancu for a talk on his work and journey of innovation. Johnson worked on the stealth...

Dr. Temple Grandin is an inventor and pioneer in improving the welfare of livestock. Her work on animal handling methods and facilities design has fundamentally changed the industry around the world. A best-selling author and popular TED Talk speaker...

Patents offer a reward for what has been done (discovering an invention) and an incentive for what is left to do (developing and marketing the invention). Specifically, a patent owner can prevent others from making, using, or selling the claimed invention. If the inventor chooses to develop and market the invention himself, the patent can thus be used to ward off competition. If the inventor believes that a company is better situated to develop and market the idea, he may present his invention to the company and propose a licensing arrangement. His patent can protect him against the possibility that the company will forego compensating him while pursuing the idea nonetheless. Thus, patents offer a unique protection to individuals, in that they allow individuals to pursue collaborative efforts to develop their idea.

However, focusing on a patent's rewards alone provides an incomplete picture of benefits that the patent system provides to individuals. Two other questions must be considered: (1) what are the costs associated with pursuing a patent; and (2) what is the probability that such a pursuit will lead to issuance of a patent? If patent-pursuit costs are very high, or if patent issuance rates is very low, then it would appear as though the net value provided by the patent system to individual inventors is low.

Statutes and PTO rules set forth a number of requirements that must be met before an application may be examined by the PTO [11]. When an application is initially filed, it must include a number of components: the full application, an oath or declaration in which the inventor states that he believes the named inventor/s were the first inventor/s of the claimed subject matter, fees, and a translation, if necessary [12]. If one or more of these are not submitted or not complete at the time of filing, the PTO will issue a Notice to File Missing Parts, a Notice of Incomplete Application or a Notice of Omitted Item(s) [13], [14]. Further, if application documents fail to conform to technical requirements (e.g., if the application's abstract is not on a separate page or claims are not consecutively numbered), a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers is issued [15]. The Applicant may then submit the missing item or a corrected item, though the filing date may then be the date that the missing item was received [16].

One potential explanation for the relatively high pro-se-application abandonment rate is that pro-se inventors unintentionally abandon their application. After an application is filed, the applicant is responsible for responding to PTO communications (e.g., by supplementing incomplete applications, responding to rejections in Office Actions, or paying issuance fees). If the applicant fails to respond to a PTO communication within the prescribed time, the application is abandoned.

It would be exceedingly difficult to identify the precise fraction of abandoned applications that were unintentionally abandoned. However, it is informative to identify the fraction of applications in which a Petition to Revive was filed, which may be filed when an application was unavoidably or unintentionally abandoned [21]. This petition was filed in 5.3% of pro-se applications and 1.2% of the represented applications. It is likely that these percentages under-estimate pro-se applicants' unintentional abandonments, as the applicants may have been unaware of the opportunity to revive the application or may have been deterred by the petition fee ($810 for small inventors [22]).

The graph shows the probability among represented applications (white bars) and among pro-se applications (black bars) that the a first Office Action included (1) no advice at all (first group of bars); (2) content-specific advice, such as suggested new claims or claim amendments (second group of bars); (3) advice for an inventor to seek the assistance of a patent attorney or agent (third group of bars); or (4) identification of allowable or allowed claims (fourth group of bars).

The Director of the PTO has characterized interviews as being effective at quickly resolving issues [33]. However, it is unclear whether pro-se inventors are even aware of the opportunity of interviewing. While Office Actions include the examiner's contact information, the applicant may not understand that this information is any more than a communication formality. I identified the percentage of applications within each data set for which one or more interviews were conducted during examination. Additionally, based on summaries and dates of the interviews presented in official communications from the PTO and Amendments, I attempted to determine whether the examiner or the applicant initiated the interview. In some instances, more than one interview was conducted during examination, with both the examiner and the applicant initiating one or more of the interviews.

As described above, a patent can provide protection to individuals seeking to fully develop and market their invention or to license the idea to a company better equipped for the entailed manufacturing and marketing. However, this protection depends critically on two factors: (1) whether a patent application actually issues into an enforceable patent; and, (2) if so, whether the claims cover the invention and foreseeable design-arounds (similar products or methods sufficiently different from the claimed subject matter to escape liability). The above-presented analysis suggests that pro-se patent applicants are less likely to achieve desirable patenting results. (Figures 1 and 2.) While pro-se inventors saved money initially, the 76% abandonment rate indicates that most wasted the filing fees paid to the PTO.

A third potential cause of the high abandonment rate is that no legal argument or action (e.g., claim amendment) would be sufficient to put a pro-se application in condition for allowance. While claims can be amended during patent prosecution, the amendments are constrained by the information originally disclosed in the specification [1]. Thus, original or amended claims not enabled or fully described in the original specification cannot be allowed [1]. A poorly drafted application may prevent even a skilled patent professional from convincing an examiner to allow any claims. Additionally, the invention sought to be protected by the claims must be novel [35], non-obvious [36], and of patentable subject matter [37]. An applicant attempting to patent an age-old product will not succeed in his efforts.

As stated above, the PTO currently recommends that pro-se inventors seek the advice of a registered patent attorney or agent [4], [29]. While patent attorneys and agents typically charge substantial amounts to draft and prosecute patent applications, inventors must consider the value of their services. Admittedly, pro-se applicants may initially save money by foregoing representation. However, the abandonment rate for pro-se applications is over twice that for represented applications, suggesting that pro-se applicants are more than twice as likely to have completely wasted their filing-fee and time investments. Additionally, even if a pro-se applicant succeeds in securing a patent, pro-se patents include fewer and longer claims as compared to represented patents (Figures 1 and 2), suggesting a narrower scope of protection. Thus, pro-se applicants should at least consider that pro-se applications typically fare worse than represented applications when deciding whether to hire a patent attorney or agent.

Additionally, an inventor has several personal resources at his disposal. He may call the PTO's Inventor's Assistance Center at 800-785-9199 to clarify any confusion about what must be filed [41]. Once the application has been filed and assigned to an examiner, he may also contact the examiner with questions. This may be most valuable when attempting to determine how to respond to a rejection of the application. If the applicant identifies himself as a pro-se inventor, the examiner will likely help explain the rejections set forth in the Action and the options available to the applicant in responding to the rejections.

This article presents an analysis of pro-se inventors' efforts to self-navigate through the patent system. Currently, pro-se inventors fare worse than represented inventors. However, this issue extends beyond the boundaries of patent law. In patent law, an inventor has the option as to whether to pursue a patent or not and may (following a pursuit decision) subsequently decide upon a self- or professional-representation strategy. In other legal contexts (e.g., family law, criminal law, etc.), involvement with the law may not be optional. Factors such as costs or dissatisfaction with counsel may persuade a litigant to represent himself. Thus, it may be even more critical to assess whether the legal system is accessible to an unrepresented person. be457b7860