Topics created by ChristianS2558

Hi Christian,

Thank you for the suggestions. We will take this under consideration.

@SadiqA2304 I thought of that but was concerned that it might muck with triggering conditions if the task name was later changed to remove the "under development" text.

It would also mean that normal users would still see it and the under development tasks would still clutter up the interface.

@gregg_appcoll Ah, thanks for clarifying. Might be worth including some parenthetical text below the "Empty Trash" button to indicate that it has this capability.

Looking forward to using it!

Best,
Christian

@GreggH8509 Great, thank you--would be very helpful!

Hi Christian,

Currently, the solutions you mentioned are the only ways of doing so. However, we are working on a solution. We will certainly make this known once it's done.

@ChristianS9906 Thanks for the "reminder" --Discussions are a current project at the moment; we should be able to address this soon.

Hi Christian,

This has been added to our development schedule. We will let you know when this has been done.

Hi CHristian,

This is a good idea. We will look into this the next time we revise the UI.

@jonah-soundhound-com Yup, that would do the trick--strange that I didn't find that suggestion when I looked for custom tasks as a search topic. I upvoted it.

@jonah-soundhound-com Yeah, I thought of that as well--but at some point, too much customizability becomes problematic for AppColl since it makes it difficult for them to write coherent instructions for users (if you have a screen shot showing where fields are but users may have completely different UI layouts, that may introduce headaches).

However, one way to maybe address that is to have a button/toggle in the UI that lets users instantly flip between a "default" AppColl UI layout (like it is now) and a customer-defined layout (in which admins could reposition any fields to suit the needs of their attorneys/admins). That way AppColl's help files are still applicable to the AppColl default, but users can also use custom layouts--with the understanding that AppColl help files are intended to be directed at the default layout....

@jonah-soundhound-com
37 CFR 1.78 requires that "[t]he reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application." Not the same weight as 35 USC 120, of course, but still something I think should be complied with.

I suspect that you may be correct that it might not actually impact the priority claim's validity if one did not, but I would not want to test it--at the very least, there could be an argument that a patentee committed inequitable conduct by, for example, labeling a CIP priority claim as a normal "continuation" priority claim. This might cause an Examiner to mistakenly assume that the subject matter in the application is identical to that in the parent, and thus incorrectly apply the parent's priority date to all claim elements when some of those claim elements were not in the priority application and not entitled to that earlier date....

Dear AppColl,

Please implement this request with high priority. While this is not a big deal for professional prosecutors, it is a big deal for users who use AppColl to manage portfolios.

Thank you.
~Jonah

Hi Christian,

Protecting existing subject matter connections is certainly import. We're looking into this. Thank you for pointing this out.