Section 1207.04 of the MPEP states that Examiners can reopen prosecution after the Applicant has filed an Appeal Brief. I do not see any basis in the patent statutes or rules for this section of the MPEP. Nor is there any justifiably reason to allow this. Examiners are allowed to place new rejections in the Examiner's Answer, which the Applicant can then choose to respond to by reopening prosecution or proceeding... more »
Most Alice rejections I have received recently cite caselaw by name, but do not tell you how to find the decisions themselves. It occurred to me today that this may effectively prevent a pro se applicant from responding to such a rejection. I propose amending 706.03(a), form paragraph 7.05.015, to refer to the USPTO's web site for information not found in the Action. For example: (>>insertions<< marked) --- the claimed... more »
Wow - first idea in this chapter!
Anyway, 402.10 (Nov. 2015) (p. 400-19, right column), first paragraph, says "Papers revoking ... will not be accepted ... when signed by less than all". I believe that should read "by fewer than all." Similarly, the title should "fewer" instead of "less." Thanks!
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 »
37 CFR 1.48(c) (text below) requires an additional fee to paid "unless the request is accompanied by a statement that the request to correct or change the inventorship is due solely to the cancelation of claims in the application." How is this rule being interpreted if only one claim is cancelled? How is this rule being interpreted in a design application when the change of inventorship is due to an election/restriction... more »
In MPEP 2111.05, either citations to related-to-process based decisions should be provided, or the subheadings should be altered to remove parenthetical reference to processes. The two subheadings in question are: I. DETERMINING WHETHER A FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS BETWEEN PRINTED MATTER AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCT (OR PROCESS) II. FUNCTIONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINTED MATTER AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCT (OR PROCESS)... more »
MPEP 2116 formerly* read: The materials on which a process is carried out must be accorded weight in determining the patentability of a process. Ex parte Leonard, 187 USPQ 122 (Bd. App. 1974). I just today noticed that 2116 has gone. Why? The change summary** that removed it says "Section removed and reserved" but does not give an explanation. If it was removed for purely logistical reasons, would you please bring... more »
MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) cites Chicago Rawhide, 223 USPQ 351 (Bd. Pat App. & Inter. 1984) for both "[t]he mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness" and "[t]he prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of the appellant's specification,... more »
Subject: MPEP 707.07(f), form paragraph 7.38 (p. 700-160, Nov. 2015) The current language says "Applicant’s arguments ... are moot because [they] do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection." However, I regularly see this paragraph in second 103 rejections when some references have been carried forward. Would you please update the language to match how it is used, or add a separate form... more »
Alternatively, amend appendix II to include the text of all of the cited court cases.
PPH (708.02(c), Nov. 2015) isn't mentioned by name in the Subject Matter Index. Would you please add it, and relevant other terms? For example, "highway" also isn't in the index. Thanks!
the phrase "the same invention claimed" in the first sentence of 201.07 should be replaced with
--an invention disclosed--
Continuation applications are sometimes but not always for the same invention. By statue they are only required to be based on the same disclosure.
The second paragraph of MPEP 706.02(f)(1), section II (the bottom of the right column on page 700-37) reads "all references to 35 USC 102 in the examples and flowcharts below are to the version of 35 USC 102 in effect on March 15, 2012 (the pre-AIA version)." While this is technically true, I believe that "March 15, 2012" was intended to read "March 15, 2013," one day before the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the... more »
I believe this section could be improved if there were more subheading designations within the section. For example under section A (Relevant Considerations for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount to An Inventive Concept) there are two separate lists (Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" and Limitations that the courts have found not be enough to qualify as "significantly... more »
In 1893.03(e), I.: The text notes that "If the international application is published in English, the Office will use the description, claims, abstract and drawings as published in the pamphlet for the U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371." This statement is perfectly clear. However, I think it would benefit from some expansion. 1. I proposed expressly adding the logical consequence: "Therefore, any... more »