600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Start a discussion about this section by clicking the Submit New Idea button on the left. You can read this section on the USPTO website.

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Filing non-provisional application automatically corrects errors

The previous rules provided an alternative method for correcting errors in provisional applications. Specifically, in § 201.03 section VI the 8th edition (Rev. 9 2012) the MPEP instructed that filing a non-provisional application with inventor overlap would correct any errors as to inventorship in a provisional application. This language, however, is absent in the present edition even though it is based on the same law ...more »

Submitted by (@nubine7)

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

MPEP 608.02(a) - when are drawings and content thereof required

The MPEP should more clearly spell out when drawings are actually necessary. In process inventions, it seems that drawings should not be required, but the text of MPEP 608.02 seems to be an open invitation to examiners to make unnecessary requirements. Moreover, what exactly does "admits of illustration by a drawing" mean? Is it not possible to articulate the statute in more clear language into the rule? 35 USC 113 ...more »

Submitted by (@dlightner)

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

605.01: clarify partial and obligated assignee-Applicant

Fact pattern: A corporation is applying for a patent. A first inventor has signed the Assignment papers assigning that inventor's rights to the corporation. A second inventor is on vacation and cannot sign the Assignment before filing, but is under an obligation to assign to the corporation. MPEP 605.01, and the language in the ADS (PTO/AIA/14 (11-15)), are unclear about whether to list one or two Applicants in this ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

608.04(b) could reference 1893.03(e)

608.04(b) (Jan. 2018) says: > Applicants can avoid the need to file a preliminary amendment by incorporating any > desired amendments into the text of the specification, even where the application is > a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application. Applicants are > strongly encouraged to avoid submitting any preliminary amendments. However, this "strong[] encourage[ment]" does not apply to national-stage ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Promote 602.01(a) and 602.01(b) out from under "Inventorship"

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

Typo in 601.05(a), II (Jan. 2018 at 600-51)

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)

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

601.05(a), II: Don't need strikeout when first adding Applicant

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 »

Submitted by (@chrisw)

Voting

0 votes
0 up votes
0 down votes
Active