Should the format for showing text changes be modernized?

Currently, modifications to the text of the MPEP are shown using open and close bracket signs. Would it be ok to indicate changes in a more modern way? If so, how?

Should the format for showing text changes be modernized?

Tracking changes to the MPEP

By its choice of the word "modernized", the question "should the format for showing text changes be 'modernized'?" shows the view of its author, yet fails to propose what that author believes to be a "modern" approach. Perhaps the strikethrough and underline approach used for delineating claim amendments? If so, I would vote yes, if only for the sake of consistency and near universal comprehension among practitioners ...more »

Submitted by (@mikehaynes)

Voting

5 votes
5 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Should the format for showing text changes be modernized?

Best Practices Sections Targeted Toward Practitioners

It would be helpful to expand the scope of the MPEP to include sub-sections within each topic specifically targeted at practitioners. This would certainly be in the public interest since specific and concrete guidance for practitioners would improve patent quality.

 

These subsections could include further commentary with specific suggestions, concrete examples, and check lists for best practices.

Submitted by (@alan.flum)

Voting

3 votes
5 up votes
2 down votes
Active

Should the format for showing text changes be modernized?

Presenting info in terms of the prosecution history

MPEP should be written in chronological order, i.e. chapters matching the life cycle/timeline of an application. For example: Filling, Searchig,Non-Final Action,Final Action, Response, Interview, After Final Communication, Allowance, etc.

 

Benefit. easy to search, simplify MPEP, reduce redundancy.

Submitted by (@josediaz)

Voting

-2 votes
2 up votes
4 down votes
Active