Discuss the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) 600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

MPEP Sec. 602.01(c)(1) cites the wrong version of CFR 1.48. Specifically, it cites the pre-aia version and not the latest version.

MPEP 608.01(n)(III) is labeled "infringement test," but the "infringement test" is actually described in the previous section, MPEP 608.01(n)(II), third paragraph, discussing whether or not claims could be met without infringing the parent claims. In contrast, MPEP 608.01(n)(III) references infringement in its first paragraph, but then only discusses the "further limitation" requirement.

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 »

As far as I understand, right now no claim is required to establish a filing date. But search around "at least one claim" on chapter 600, you still get a few such old descriptions.

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 »

Immediately following the Title of section 602.01(c)(1) in the Editor Note, it seems that "applications" must be changed to --requests--.

Preparing EPS submission, i notice most of the forms are expired, that is, beyond their 'use by' dates. Where are up-to-date forms located?

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 »

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 »

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...".

 

Thanks!

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 »

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)

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 »

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 »

In 607, III (Jan. 2018), at 600-124, left column, bottom, there is a paragraph break in the middle of a sentence. It appears that it should be amended "...specified in 37 CFR 41(a)(2)[[.

]]{ }also apply to all reissue..."

 

([[deletions]], {insertions})

Thanks!

(All opinions my own.)