Re: Encryption patent - Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action !
posted on
May 03, 2014 09:52AM
You are correct, that's what Fred said on Aug 29.
Then on Oct 18 the USPTO sent out the non final rejection per below.
microSignet patent issued officially Oct 29.
IMO, with this chain of events, the patent app was no longer important, so EDIG chose not to respond. Fred said to Nunally, "FOGETTABOUTIT"
Also at the Nov 19, 2009 SHM, it was stated to a question from the floor asking if this patent app attemp was very important, as in was it a valuable asset if approved...the answer was "not really."
IMO, EDIG/DM went thru the motions until the non final hit, there was too much to overcome, microSignet had already received the nod Oct 9, for publication Oct 29.
As I see things, it was no longer worth pursuing regarding cost to continue the fight vs the assumed return if approved.
Bottom line, ROI was a negative number.
10-18-2013 | CTNF | Non-Final Rejection | PROSECUTION | 11 | |
10-18-2013 | 892 | List of references cited by examiner | PROSECUTION | 6 | |
10-18-2013 | SRFW | Search information including classification, databases and other search related notes | PROSECUTION | 1 | |
10-18-2013 | SRNT | Examiner's search strategy and results | PROSECUTION | 8 | |
10-18-2013 | FWCLM | Index of Claims | PROSECUTION |
1 |