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 ...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 »
601.05(a), II (Jan. 2018) at 600-50--51 says that: A corrected ADS accompanying a request to change the applicant ... must show the changes in applicant information relative to the applicant information on the most recent filing receipt, even if ... an applicant was not previously identified in an ADS ... However, I don't believe that matches the Office's current practice. Specifically, if no Applicant has been specified, ...more »
In 601.05(a), II (Jan. 2018 printing at 600-51, left column), I believe the last sentence should be amended to correct a typo as follows:
... must show ... the new information with underlining, as if the incorrect information [[was]] _had been_ submitted in an ADS filed with the application.
(all opinions my own)
602.01(a) and 602.01(b) (Jan. 2018) are nested under 602.01 Inventorship. However, 01(a) and 01(b) deal with the oath/declaration generally, not just with inventorship issues. I suggest promoting them one level, or moving them out from under 602.01. Perhaps 602.01(a) could become 602.10 and 602.01(b) become 602.11. Alternatively, perhaps a new 601.10 "General requirements and procedures" could be added, with 602.01(a) ...more »
MPEP 2106.04 (Jan. 2018) (at 2100-21, right column) quotes the original 2014 Guidance (79 FR 74618, 74622) that “A claim is directed to a judicial exception when ... an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.” However, the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision specifically found that the “‘directed to’ inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the claims *involve* a patent-ineligible concept.” ...more »
Jan. 2018, using Acrobat v11.0.23. In the index, on p. 35, left column, lines 4 and 6, the links to section 503 do not take me there when I click them. I checked them by going to Tools | Interactive Objects | Select Object, right-clicking each one in turn, and choosing Properties | Actions. The Action shows as "Go to a page in another document," which is correct. However, the File shows as "C:\(the path to the PDFs)\.pdf" ...more »
Eighteen portions of the newly-edited 2106 place periods outside of quotes. This is still not generally accepted in American grammar, and is inconsistent with the section as a whole (eighty-four instances of periods within the quoted text).
There are also twenty-five great number of commas outside of quotes (as opposed to thirty-two within).
Add a "1," before "Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: " Add a "2." before "Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:" If discussing Alice step B, in order to cite the MPEP for any particular class of limitation, ...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 »
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...".