600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

MPEP 608.02(a) - when are drawings and content thereof required

The MPEP should more clearly spell out when drawings are actually necessary. In process inventions, it seems that drawings should not be required, but the text of MPEP 608.02 seems to be an open invitation to examiners to make unnecessary requirements. Moreover, what exactly does "admits of illustration by a drawing" mean? Is it not possible to articulate the statute in more clear language into the rule? 35 USC 113 ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

2100 Patentability

Amend MPEP § 2164.04

I believe that MPEP § 2164.04 is internally inconsistent, not an accurate statement of the law, and confusing. Examiners routinely cite MPEP § 2164.04 for the proposition that they do not have to provide any actual reasoning when rejecting a claim under § 112(a) as lacking enablement. This is not an accurate statement of the law; therefore, I suggest deleting this section. Alternatively, this section could be amended ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

2 up votes
0 down votes

700 Examination of Applications

Clarity Needed on Second Non-Final According to 706.07(a)

In the case the examiner must withdraw finality of an improper Final rejection, I understand that the Office takes the position that, despite the fact the First Non-Final Rejection was proper, the "second or any subsequent" action may not be made Final if not necessitated by amendments or IDS with its fees/period clauses. However, it absolutely does not make any sense why the examiner should reopen prosecution when amendments ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

1 up votes
0 down votes

2100 Patentability

Remove MPEP § 2172.01

MPEP § 2172.01 is routinely misapplied by examiners. Examiners appear to apply it in situations where the examiner thinks that what the applicant is claiming is too broad, but: (i) the factual circumstances of the two main cited cases, In re Mayhew and In re Venezia, were quite narrow and never considered by the examiners; and (ii) most rejections under § 2172.01 directly contravene § 2173.04 (breadth is not indefiniteness). ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

2 up votes
0 down votes

2100 Patentability

Expand 2145, IV. to explain "Keller," not just quote it.

MPEP 2145, IV (Nov. 2015), at 2100-194, quotes In re Keller without explanation. The Office should expand the discussion to explain to Examiners and Applicants the scope of applicability of Keller. Keller says "[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references." 642 F.2d 413, 426. I have seen this quote interpreted to mean that any argument ...more »

Voting

2 up votes
0 down votes

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Revision number should reflect latest update

R-07.2015 has a 10/2015 publication and an 11/2015 publication. The two publications differ in substance, not merely in form. For ease and clarity of citation, I suggest the revision number match the publication date in the future. Alternatively, I suggest the MPEP be referred to primarily by a publication date (e.g., "E9 P-11.2015") rather than a revision number. I understand that presently the "R" number is the ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

0 up votes
0 down votes

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Implement Friendly URLs on mpep.uspto.gov

The URLs for the http://mpep.uspto.gov site are not currently friendly and it can be difficult to determine what a link might lead you to. The link for MPEP 1200 is currently: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/current/d0e18.xml#/manual/MPEP/DC1_FPindexR-07.2015/d0e122292.xml It would be helpful if it were something more like this: http://mpep.uspto.gov/e9r072015/MPEP/1200 The link for 35 USC 101 is currently: ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

5 up votes
0 down votes

Displaying 1 - 7 of 40 Ideas