Member since 2 years ago
13 ideas posted
11 comments 10 votes
Design Section 1504.06 points to MPEP 804 (revised 2006) with regard to determining whether a one-way or a two-way double patenting rejections would be appropriate. I suggest that 1504.06 should instead refer to Section 1490, which was revised in 2008 and contains more up-to-date guidance on the topic of one-way or two-way non-statutory double patenting rejections.
The abstract length requirement in 1302.01 (limited to 150 words) is inconsistent with Abstract Example 2 in MPEP 608.01(b) section (E) which is 165 words in length.
The 703-308-XXXX telephone numbers listed as contacts on teh bottom of the PTO-166 form are no longer in service. See page 2400-53, section 2427, for the PTO form 166, last revised 7/97.
The final cross reference shown below should be corrected to say "MPEP 821" not MPEP 823.
>The sections of the MPEP relating to double patenting rejections (MPEP § 804), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 818), and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04) generally also apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP § 823.<
Unity of invention section 1983.03(d) could be made clearer by incorporating Paragraph 20.09 of the ISPE Guidelines- unity is to be reconsidered upon claim amendment.
this section merits updating to reflect telephone practice for the USPTO's growing nationwide workforce and reduce emphasis on encouraging examiners to initiate interviews for practicitioners who have offices in the Washington area.
sections 301.01, 302.09 and Form SB/96 refer to reel and frame numbers. Do these sections and form need updating or is the USPTO still maintaining assignment information on micro-fiche?
Social Web