Campaign: Discuss Chapter 500: Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers

CFR reference to MPEP Sections

It would be helpful to have the HTML portion of the MPEP that lists the rule and statutes to include a link to the portion of the MPEP that provides further information. For example, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_116.htm#cfr37s1.116 should include a link to the page that discusses CFR 1.116:

 

e.g., for USPTO interpretation, see MPEP 710

Submitted by

Voting

15 votes
16 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: 609.01 Examiner Checklist for Information Disclosure Statements

citing "other material" on IDS form

37 CFR 1.98 (a) lists "other information" which may be cited in an IDS form. The PTO/SB/08A form is limited to US and foreign patents and their applications. The PTO/SB/08B form is limited to Non-Patent LIterature Documents. It is not clear where to cite "other information" that are papers associated with a patent application (office action, etc). A new IDS form that includes a place for "other material" would ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

12 votes
13 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: How else should the web site presentation change?

MPEP should follow the BlueBook

Recent Office Actions continue to provide improper caselaw citations, such as incomplete citations that are ineffective to locate the case, citations to only USPQ when the cited case is available in an official reporter (e.g., a Federal reporter), etc.

 

To the extent those improper citations are drawing from the MPEP, the MPEP's caselaw citations should carefully adhere to the BlueBook.

Submitted by

Voting

12 votes
12 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: 608.01(c) Background of the Invention

Non-mandatory nature of Background

Section should be revised to help novice Examiners recognize and appreciate that no Background section is statutorily required, and thus absence of such a section is not proper grounds for objection.

Submitted by

Voting

11 votes
12 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: Discuss this Discussion Tool

Excellent opportunity to provide feedback to MPEP writers

I think this forum will provide the patent community with an excellent opportunity to present ideas to the MPEP writers and others within the Patent Office who have rulemaking authority/responsibilities. It seems that when a comment is posted others in the community can vote it up or down, as well as discuss the pros and cons. This should allow for an airing of substantive matters while allowing the cream (so to speak) ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

10 votes
11 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: 608.01(c) Background of the Invention

Non-mandatory nature of Summary

Section should be revised to help novice Examiners recognize and appreciate that no Summary section is statutorily required, and thus absence of such a section is not proper grounds for objection.

Submitted by

Voting

10 votes
11 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: 608.01(c) Background of the Invention

Non-mandatory nature of Field of the Invention

Section should be revised to help novice Examiners recognize and appreciate that no "Field of the Invention" section is statutorily required, and thus absence of such a section is not proper grounds for objection.

Submitted by

Voting

9 votes
10 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: Should the web version include hyperlinks to additional material?

MPEP Navigation

The HTML version of the MPEP includes one navigation at the top of each page and one at the bottom, for MPEP forward and backward navigation to the adjacent section of the MPEP. That button at the bottom of each page is a design flaw, because it requires a user to navigate to the bottom of each HTML page to navigate to the next section of the MPEP. Both buttons shoudl be at the top, at a location that is identical from ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

9 votes
10 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: 605.04(g) Correction of Inventorship

guidance for electronic file wrapper papers

Today, the vast majority of our applications are handled via electronic file wrapper. However, MPEP 605.04(g), for example, contains detailed instructions for handling of the paper file "see Paper No. ___ for inventorship changes," yet refers examiners to the "IFW Manual" (with no link or citation as to where that its found) for Image File Wrapper Processing. It'd be helpful if the more detailed guidance were provided ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

8 votes
8 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: Discuss this Discussion Tool

Link to the current MPEP

Since the tool is designed to track comments directed to a specific section of the MPEP, provide a link to the relevant section from somewhere in the tool.

Submitted by

Voting

7 votes
7 up votes
0 down votes
Active

Campaign: 608.01(o) Basis for Claim Terminology in Description

Current examples of prohibted claim language

This may best be a comment relative to MPEP 2173.05(d), but does relate to claim language, which is why I put it here. Exemplary claim language is found in issued patents every week. Just look through issued patents in any week and you can find numerous claims issued that violate the requirements of 2173.05(d). The examples of exemplary claim language there are cited from decisions from 1949 and 1961. It is not particularly ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

6 votes
7 up votes
1 down votes
Active

Campaign: Discuss this Discussion Tool

Great Opportunity to Train Prosecutors

I agree with Gene, and also see this as a potentially outstanding tool for training prosecutors how to handle certain challenges presented by current Office practice.

Submitted by

Voting

6 votes
6 up votes
0 down votes
Active