(@jasonliao)

2100 Patentability

Remove part of quotation from Chicago Rawhide

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 »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@riddick1)

2700 Patent Terms and Extensions

Automatic Patent placement

when an inventor submits a new idea to be patented without help from a patent attorney it should be automatically placed into the correct category. Either Utility Patent, if it is truly a utility patent, or Design patent, if that is truly what it is. This would save a lot of time and money on everyone's part. For instance, I submitted my provisional application for an idea on my own and because i thought that i had to... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@justin.blaufeld)

2100 Patentability

2111.03 fixing the grammar/semantics of the word "unrecited"

MPEP § 2111.03 explains how different transitional phrases in a claim affect claim scope with respect to what "unrecited" additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. I proposed replacing all instances of the word "unrecited" with the word "non-recited." This word, "unrecited," does not accurately describe the concept. When the "un-" prefix is paired with a verb, it typically causes... more »

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
(@bricoyle)

2100 Patentability

Safety and Efficacy Considerations - evidence clarification

Medical products have been given some leeway by the USPTO, in terms of product safety. Their safety is regulated by another government division, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Medical product makers do not want to "publicize" inventions prior to patenting. If USPTO demanded FDA approval, that would allow other companies to copy the invention while it was being tested for the FDA. It makes more sense to patent... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@ryanpoolrp)

2100 Patentability

How to Rebut a 102/103 rejection based on Inherency

MPEP § 2112 which address the Inherency Doctrine, makes clear that once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to applicants to show that the claimed property is not inherent. However, this section of the MPEP (and the MPEP as a whole) fails to articulate how applicants can satisfy this burden. Because of this lack of guidance, Examiners commonly mistakenly apply the unexpected results standard... more »

Voting

3 votes
4 up votes
1 down votes
(@chrisw)

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Clarify position of copyright notice in spec (1.71/1.77/608.01)

MPEP 608.01(w) (Jan. 2018) and 27 CFR 1.71(d) suggest that a copyright-notice paragraph should "preferably [be] the first paragraph ... of the specification." However, this is often not the case. Would the Office please clarify at least the MPEP, and preferably also 1.71(d), to reflect current practice? For example, in recent US 10,219,356 (the first hit in a quick patft search), the "cross-reference to related applications"... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@dorange)

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

"Infringement Test" in 608.01(n)

MPEP 608.01(n)(III) is labeled "infringement test," but the "infringement test" is actually described in the previous section, MPEP 608.01(n)(II), third paragraph, discussing whether or not claims could be met without infringing the parent claims. In contrast, MPEP 608.01(n)(III) references infringement in its first paragraph, but then only discusses the "further limitation" requirement.

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes
(@dorange)

2100 Patentability

Clarification of number of species to support a broad genus

MPEP 2163.03(V) states "An original claim may lack written description support when ... (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)." Here, the use of the singular in "a narrow species" could suggest that this rejection is only allowed... more »

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes
(@dorange)

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

Impermissible shift - which claims are used for comparison?

MPEP 818.02(a) says that in making a determination of whether election by original presentation has occurred, the present claimed should be compared to the "original claims." But this section directs the examiner to 821.03, which in turn cites 37 CFR 1.145, both of which say "previously claimed" instead of "original claims." A distinction can arise because application may have more than one set of amendments (i.e.,... more »

Voting

3 votes
3 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw)

100 Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing

Clarify "expedited" FFL petition in 140, I.

MPEP 140, I. (Jan. 2018), at 100-35--36, is titled "Expedited Foreign Filing License." It references 37 CFR 5.12(b), which relates to a "petition for license." Would the Office please clarify what "Expedited" means here? For most petitions, the Applicant can submit a separate petition under 1.182 to request expedited consideration of the substantive petition. However, as far as I know, there is only one type of petition... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@chrisw)

1500 Design Patents

1504.05: Add section for how to respond to a restriction

This is a followup to https://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Correction-of-Inventorship/549565-9426 by @zmthomas. I admit that I don't have nearly as much design-patent experience as some of my colleagues. Please let me know if I am missing something! I have searched sections 700, 800, and 1500 (Jan. 2018). The only places I can find an explanation of how to respond to a restriction requirement in a design application... more »

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
(@zmthomas)

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Correction of Inventorship

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 »

Voting

0 votes
1 up votes
1 down votes