1700 Miscellaneous

§103 - problem-and-solution

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”.

Submitted by (@brianhjcronin)

Voting

0 votes
0 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

1100 Statutory Invention Registration (SIR); Pre-Grant Publication (PGPub) and Preissuance Submissions

Nonpub req can't be filed separately on the same date? (1122, I)

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

500 Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers

Change 509.03's Roman numerals to subsections

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!

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1300 Allowance and Issue

1306 could reference 35 USC 21(b) - weekend rule

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

1893: Expressly reference amendments outside Chapter II

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1800 Patent Cooperation Treaty

1893.03(e), I: Clarify language and procedure

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1500 Design Patents

1504.05 typo

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

Submitted by (@thomas.mcbride)

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active