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 »
1. App. L (Jan. 2018) at L-29, left column, in 35 USC 119(a): comma placement:
, pursuant to which..."
pursuant to which..."
2. Id. at L-30, right column, 35 USC 120: spacing:
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385which"
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385 which"
(with space after "385")
602.08(a), II (Jan. 2018), p. 600-97, left column, first full paragraph:
Line 5 is missing an "is" at the end of the line. The text should be amended: "If the inventor lives at a location which >>is<< different from the inventor’s mailing address...".
Please see MPEP 2106.03, I. (Jan. 2018), at 18, right column. The second non-bulleted paragraph (“paragraph A”) begins: “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category” (at 2100-19). Since paragraph A solely relates to Nuijten,* I suggest revising paragraph A to expressly relate to signals, and to clarify the meaning of “tangible.” For example, I propose revising paragraph ...more »
Why is the following quote from KSR included in this section about analogous art?: “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. ” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). The 'problem' being ...more »
MPEP paragraphs often contain explanatory links to other short sections, laws, rules, etc. They would be easier to comprehend if the links were displayed as popups so the reader wouldn't have to jump back and forth in the manual. I've never seen popup footnotes or links in pdf myself, but I've seen references to such in a brief search, so I guess it's possible: https://accessible-digital-documents.com/blog/accessible-pdf-footnotes-endnotes/ ...more »
MPEP 1306 (Issue Fee) opens with "The issue fee ... [is] due 3 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance." However, as far as I know, the weekend rule of 35 USC 21(b) still extends the time period if it would otherwise end on a weekend. Could 1306 be amended to reference this statute, for completeness? 35 USC 151 Issue of Patent.--- (a) ... The notice shall specify a sum ... which shall be paid within 3 months ...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 »
608.04(b) (Jan. 2018) says: > Applicants can avoid the need to file a preliminary amendment by incorporating any > desired amendments into the text of the specification, even where the application is > a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application. Applicants are > strongly encouraged to avoid submitting any preliminary amendments. However, this "strong encourage[ment]" does not apply to national-stage ...more »
Opening a new chapter! Not a situation I have personally encountered, but I just ran across this in 1122, II (p. 1100-11) (Jan. 2018): > A nonpublication request must be filed upon the filing of the > application. This is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived. So far, so good. But then: > The nonpublication request must also be included with the application > papers. The nonpublication request cannot ...more »
Thanks very much for the 01-2018 publication! I am looking forward to enjoying the changes as I work with it. Would you be willing to provide a PDX index file to the downloadable PDF version, or point me to where it is? I can't find it on the MPEP page or in e9r-08-2017.zip. The 11-2015 publication included the "E9R-07.2015.pdx" index file, and I have made good use of that over the last two years. (The 11-2015 publication ...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 »