US Patent Agent & Mechatronics Engineer Needed
Budget: $250 – $750 USD
I'm a pro se inventor currently preparing a 5-page brief-appeal to overcome an obviousness rejection before the USPTO related to a portable electro-mechanical daily personal device.
We are seeking a USPTO-registered patent agent and a mechatronics engineer with extensive experience in:
- Handling obviousness rejections (35 U.S.C. §103) before the USPTO.
- Expertise in Art Unit 1714 (preferably with prior experience as a USPTO patent examiner in this field).
- Analyzing and validating the applicability of relevant case law to support non-obviousness arguments.
- Assisting a Pro se inventor in preparing for a virtual examiner interview, and leading the interview from both technical and legal perspectives to persuade the examiner of the invention’s non-obviousness.
Responsibilities:
- Review the current 5-page brief-appeal draft from both technical and legal perspectives.
- Revise and improve the draft to strengthen arguments against the obviousness rejection.
- Formulating technical and jurisprudential non-obviousness arguments.
- Addressing second considerations of non-obviousness and hindsight bias.
- Validate the applicability of the proposed case law to our specific case.
- Ensure the final brief complies with USPTO standards and best practices.
- Assist the Pro se inventor in preparing for the virtual examiner interview, including developing persuasive arguments and strategies.
- Lead and participate in the examiner interview, providing technical and legal guidance aimed at overcoming the obviousness rejection.
- Provide additional strategic suggestions to strengthen the appeal and increase the likelihood of success.
Requirements:
✅ USPTO-registered patent agent.
✅ Mechatronics engineer (or related field) with a strong understanding of electro-mechanical devices.
✅ Proven experience preparing and defending brief-appeals before the USPTO, particularly addressing obviousness rejections.
✅ Preferred: Former USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1714.
✅ Updated knowledge of relevant case law applicable to non-obviousness arguments.
✅ Excellent technical and legal writing skills in English.
✅ Experience in preparing for and conducting USPTO examiner interviews is highly desirable.
Project Details:
- Document length: 5 pages.
⏳ Estimated project duration: 1–2 weeks.
- Budget: To be negotiated based on experience and proposals received.
- Work mode: 100% remote.
How to Apply:
Please submit your proposal including:
- A brief summary of your relevant experience.
- Examples of similar projects (if available).
- Estimated availability.
- A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) must be signed prior to sharing the draft document.
Why Work With Us?
- Opportunity to collaborate on an innovative project with sustainable impact.
- Direct collaboration with a committed and highly professional team.
- Flexible work schedule and compensation based on experience.
The ideal candidate should have extensive experience in patent law and mechatronics engineering. You should be capable of crafting compelling arguments to establish non-obviousness in both technical and legal terms. Excellent understanding of the USPTO processes and the ability to prepare effectively for examiner interviews is essential.
We are seeking a USPTO-registered patent agent and a mechatronics engineer with extensive experience in:
- Handling obviousness rejections (35 U.S.C. §103) before the USPTO.
- Expertise in Art Unit 1714 (preferably with prior experience as a USPTO patent examiner in this field).
- Analyzing and validating the applicability of relevant case law to support non-obviousness arguments.
- Assisting a Pro se inventor in preparing for a virtual examiner interview, and leading the interview from both technical and legal perspectives to persuade the examiner of the invention’s non-obviousness.
Responsibilities:
- Review the current 5-page brief-appeal draft from both technical and legal perspectives.
- Revise and improve the draft to strengthen arguments against the obviousness rejection.
- Formulating technical and jurisprudential non-obviousness arguments.
- Addressing second considerations of non-obviousness and hindsight bias.
- Validate the applicability of the proposed case law to our specific case.
- Ensure the final brief complies with USPTO standards and best practices.
- Assist the Pro se inventor in preparing for the virtual examiner interview, including developing persuasive arguments and strategies.
- Lead and participate in the examiner interview, providing technical and legal guidance aimed at overcoming the obviousness rejection.
- Provide additional strategic suggestions to strengthen the appeal and increase the likelihood of success.
Requirements:
✅ USPTO-registered patent agent.
✅ Mechatronics engineer (or related field) with a strong understanding of electro-mechanical devices.
✅ Proven experience preparing and defending brief-appeals before the USPTO, particularly addressing obviousness rejections.
✅ Preferred: Former USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1714.
✅ Updated knowledge of relevant case law applicable to non-obviousness arguments.
✅ Excellent technical and legal writing skills in English.
✅ Experience in preparing for and conducting USPTO examiner interviews is highly desirable.
Project Details:
- Document length: 5 pages.
⏳ Estimated project duration: 1–2 weeks.
- Budget: To be negotiated based on experience and proposals received.
- Work mode: 100% remote.
How to Apply:
Please submit your proposal including:
- A brief summary of your relevant experience.
- Examples of similar projects (if available).
- Estimated availability.
- A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) must be signed prior to sharing the draft document.
Why Work With Us?
- Opportunity to collaborate on an innovative project with sustainable impact.
- Direct collaboration with a committed and highly professional team.
- Flexible work schedule and compensation based on experience.
The ideal candidate should have extensive experience in patent law and mechatronics engineering. You should be capable of crafting compelling arguments to establish non-obviousness in both technical and legal terms. Excellent understanding of the USPTO processes and the ability to prepare effectively for examiner interviews is essential.