Discuss the Manual of Patent Examination Procedures (MPEP) Search Ideas

The item below refers to claim markings in a reissue application. MPEP 1451 includes a typo in the section reading "Indicia that a continuation reissue application is being filed are . . .".

In bullet 3, strike "1.175" and replace with 1.173:

3. Amendments in proper format per 37 CFR --1.173--

Should §103 of the MPEP be completed with a lead-in section recommending examiners and applicants to frame their analysis on obviousness using the “problem-and-solution approach”?

See the article in ipWatchdog “Could or should the USPTO adopt the EPO problem-and-solution approach for assessing obviousness”.

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!

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 »

Can theatrical films or movies like "Back to the Future" be cited as art in an IDS? I am familiar with citing Youtube videos. Would it be necessary to paper file the IDS and include a DVD of the movie?

509.03 is titled "Claiming small entity status." However, parts VI--X include information other than "how to claim," and part VII is how to *not* claim ("Removal of Status"). I request that parts I--X be changed to subsections 509.03(a)--509.03(j) so that they will appear in the PDF bookmarks, and so that the information in parts VI--X will be be easier to find. As always, thanks for considering this request!

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 »

I think 1893 (Nov. 2015) and its subsections could improve clarity on the national-stage status of amendments other than those made during Chapter II. Currently: - 1893.01(d) mentions that a translation in the national stage should incorporate any Rule 26 corrections or Rule 91 rectifications. - 1893.03(e), I. references the WIPO pamphlet of the application, but does not specify the effect of any republications. ...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 »

Could the sentence saying that serious burden on the examiner be corrected back to what it said in the previous version (there is clearly said it's inapplicable). Now the language where this is first discussed appeared to be missing something

There is one place in the MPEP that uses the term "non-analogous" -- MPEP 1504.03.

Every other place in the MPEP uses "nonanalogous."

In the interest of consistency...perhaps the usage in MPEP 1504.03 should be updated.

Quotation from §172 says "...by section 119(e)hall not apply to designs."