700 Examination of Applications

Clarify 7.38: "any of the references being used" is incorrect

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Clarify which section the roman-numeral headers apply to

The headers at the top of each page of the MPEP PDF give the section number. As far as I can tell, it's the last section number on that page. For example, p. 2100-141 (Nov. 2015) ends with half a sentence of 2142, so the header reads "2142." However, the vast majority of text on that page is 2141.03. Would it be possible to clarify which text is part of which section in some way? At present, I regularly wind up reading ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Introduction: clarify what "the rules" do

Introduction (Nov. 2015), p. 1, right column, bottom, reads, in part: "The primary function of the rules is to advise the public of the rules which ... must be followed before the USPTO". Would you please rewrite the beginning part of that sentence for clarity? It seems to me a bit redundant. Suggestion: "The rules govern conduct of examiners, applicants, and patent practitioners before the Office. The rules are available ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

605.01: clarify partial and obligated assignee-Applicant

Fact pattern: A corporation is applying for a patent. A first inventor has signed the Assignment papers assigning that inventor's rights to the corporation. A second inventor is on vacation and cannot sign the Assignment before filing, but is under an obligation to assign to the corporation. MPEP 605.01, and the language in the ADS (PTO/AIA/14 (11-15)), are unclear about whether to list one or two Applicants in this ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Guidance on language describing best practices/requirements

In the Introduction to the MPEP (or whatever prefatory section is preferred), add a short section on which terms are requirements and which describe best practice. Those without legal training sometimes interpret the term "should" similarly to the term "must." This seems to lead to confusion and complaints from those MPEP readers that the MPEP is "confusing" or "self-contradictory." Although some readers of the MPEP ...more »

Submitted by (@jasonliao)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

2145 should also be broken up into subsections

Similar to Justin's idea* - 2145 would also be much easier to navigate if split. I suggest moving the text under Roman numeral XI just before the current Roman numeral I to form new 2145. I suggest changing Roman numerals I-X to 2145.01-2145.10 respectively. Apologies if this is a duplicate - I can't find it mentioned through the Ideascale search or a targeted Google search. * https://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/a/dtd/%C2%A7-2181-should-be-broken-up-into-subsections/540832-9426 ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

§ 2181 should be broken up into subsections

MPEP 2181 is very long and difficult to cite. At the very least, each roman numeral section should be converted into a constituent decimal section. For example: 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation 2181.01 DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIM LIMITATION INVOKES 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, SIXTH PARAGRAPH 2181.02 DESCRIPTION NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ...more »

Submitted by (@justin.blaufeld)

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

400 Representative of Applicant or Owner

402.10: "less" should be "fewer"

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!

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes
Active