Williams Intellectual Property

The client was informed in the attachments to the emails I sent him regarding the grounds for the rejection The action that issued from the [redacted] detailed the grounds for the rejections, including the objection to the drawings I do not work for or with ***, so that would be a matter between him and that companyThere were additional rejections as well over prior art (surprisingly, livestock cleaning equipment in addition to pet doors) so the claims would likely need to be amended As to whether or not a new filing would issue, it would depend on the claims we draft and the Examiner's response There is no guarantee that the Examiner would yield - he could reject over new prior art The best thing would be for Mr [redacted] to return my calls, or contact me to discuss possibilities.For the record, I tried to reach Mr [redacted] numerous times regarding his case but without availHe never responded.We have an option to file a petition to revive for unintentional abandonment and could attempt to traverse the rejectionsThat might be the best tactic to preserve the filing date If Mr [redacted] gets back to me I would be happy to try the arguments at cost (i.ethe only cost would be the fees to the [redacted] and any new drawings fees as may be incurred)

Complaint: [redacted] Thank you for getting back to me I am rejecting this response because: I had no idea that this was rejected due to the poor drawingsI wasn't inform that you had contacted ***Would it be possible to get the drawing redone, and submit for a patent? I will cover the costs Sincerely, [redacted]

The client was informed in the attachments to the emails I sent him regarding the grounds for the rejection.  The action that issued from the [redacted] detailed the grounds for the rejections, including the objection to the drawings.  I do not work for or with [redacted], so that would be a matter between him and that company. There were additional rejections as well over prior art (surprisingly, livestock cleaning equipment in addition to pet doors) so the claims would likely need to be amended.  As to whether or not a new filing would issue, it would depend on the claims we draft and the Examiner's response.  There is no guarantee that the Examiner would yield - he could reject over new prior art.  The best thing would be for Mr. [redacted] to return my calls, or contact me to discuss possibilities.For the record, I tried to reach Mr. [redacted] numerous times regarding his case but without avail. He never responded.We have an option to file a petition to revive for unintentional abandonment and could attempt to traverse the rejections. That might be the best tactic to preserve the filing date.  If Mr. [redacted] gets back to me I would be happy to try the arguments at cost (i.e. the only cost would be the fees to the [redacted] and any new drawings fees as may be incurred).

Mr. [redacted] contacted me through a third party drafting company, called [redacted] ("[redacted]"). I did indeed attempt to prosecute a nonprovisional application for utility patent on behalf of Mr. [redacted], using the drawings supplied by that drafting company.I have never misled any of my...

clients. Mr. [redacted], like every client, was informed that approximately 50% of patent applications filed at the patent office issue as patents (48% in 2013) and that of those even less are actually commercially viable.  Even though my rate of success patenting inventions on behalf of clients is much higher than that, there can be no guarantee that a patent will be issued. Not only do I say that in every initial consultation when explaining the differences between design and utility patents, provisional and nonprovisonal applications, it's written in my contract and in the materials I give clients before hiring me.I did do a prior art search as part of the utility preparation for Mr. [redacted].  I sent 8 patents to Mr. [redacted] that were found as pertinent to his case.  I include those references below. We first spoke on 9/3/13, during which interview I explained the different type of patent applications and outlined the labyrinthine process which, in no way, can be guaranteed.  I performed the search after receiving a downpayment on my fee on 9/8/13.  We discussed the search results on 9/27/16, after receipt of my agreement for legal services. During this phone interview we discussed the prior art references (below) and determined a strategy.  Again, I never tell a client we will definitely win.  However, relative the prior art we had on hand I felt we had devised a suitable patent strategy and Mr. [redacted] elected to continue. I never tell any client ever that an invention is 100% patentable, and I've never had any client complain before, so Mr. [redacted]'s complaint is troubling and upsetting.  I've always tried my best to win and do have a high success rate relative other practitioners in the field.  I have won many patents and represent large corporate clients as well as individual inventors.  Mr. [redacted] should well remember our conversation during discussion of the search results when we discussed, as one example, that the inclusion of the wireless ID tag on the pet was not likely patentable subject material. Unfortunately, despite the strategy we outlined fro his invention, the patent office did not agree that Mr. [redacted]'s invention was patentably distinct - rejecting over a complex array of prior art under 35 USC 103(a) for obviousness, citing five references in combination over each relevant structural limitation set forth in the claims. After a thorough review of the rejections, and despite several hours attempting to prepare a response, we were unable to find a viable argument to traverse these rejections. It is also worth pointing out that the drawings supplied by the client were rejected. This was a frequent problem with the company that referred Mr. [redacted] to my firm, and a principal a reason I discontinued business with them a couple of years ago.  Attempts to get the drawings redrawn were unsuccessful, and the client never returned my emails in that capacity.  Unfortunately new drawings would have had to be done by a different draftsman as [redacted] failed to return all calls.  I cannot be he'd responsible for that company's actions.Lastly, 2 to 3 years in prosecuting a case at the [redacted], as Mr. [redacted] was made aware, is not untypical at all.  I usually quote an average of 18 months to get just a first response!  This is also outlined in the patent overview that I send most clients and is also repeated on my website.  I tell this to each client during our initial interview, as well.  Mr. [redacted] also has our office number, my direct line, my personal email, and never returned any of our communicaitons.  We wrote the letter informing him of the loss of his case because we were unable to reach him.  Indeed, before writing this response an attempt to reach him by phone was unsuccessful.I cannot in good conscience refund Mr. [redacted] the $1750 he paid me (and the $400 filing fee to the patent office) because I did my job to the best of my ability.  I spent over 2 years working on his case for a rock-bottom rate of $1,750 for a utility application, a rate I was offering [redacted] clients.  I would recommend Mr. [redacted] review compentatn practitioner's rates. I do not prepare a utility patent for less than $3,500 presently, and that is still a low fee.  The additional $400 Mr. [redacted] refers to was the [redacted] filing fee that is required to file at the [redacted].  He was made aware of this on our fee statement that, along with our contract, I send to every client.  I no longer have the exact same documents, because I do not work with [redacted] and do not charge $1750 for a patent, however, with the exception of the changed fees themselves, the document is identical and you can very well read the statement regarding the [redacted] filing fees.  Moreover, a complete disclosure of my fees is available on my website.The material "omitted" from the patent application, if memory serves, was an RFID tag that is not in and of itself patentable, however it *was* in there.  The additional fees might have been the fees required to redo the drawings due to the objection of the Figures provided by [redacted] to the [redacted].I am very sorry that Mr. [redacted] is unhappy with my work - I have never had a client complain before, and it is very upsetting that my efforts were unappreciated by him. But I performed the job, wrote him a viable patent application, and unfortunately lost the case.  It is very upsetting to lose, and it grieves me every time. But, unfortunately, it is the nature of the business that not every invention can be patentable. [redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]
[redacted]        [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]Thank you for getting back to me. 
I am rejecting this response because: I had no idea that this was rejected due to the poor drawings. I wasn't inform that you had contacted [redacted]. Would it be possible to get the drawing redone, and submit for a patent? I will cover the costs. 
Sincerely,
[redacted]