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)
1 comment

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

MISCELLANEOUS - Appendices and Other

Add a consolidated subject-matter eligibility guidance appendix

The eligibility pages at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility and https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility-examination-guidance-date are very helpful. However, as the number of documents grows, the tedium of citing them weighs more and more heavily. Would the editors please consider including a regularly-updated ...more »

Submitted by (@chrisw)
1 comment

Voting

2 votes
2 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)
2 comments

Voting

2 votes
2 up votes
0 down votes
Active

2100 Patentability

§ 2181 should be broken up into subsections

MPEP 2181 is very long and difficult to cite. At the very least, each roman numeral section should be converted into a constituent decimal section. For example: 2181 Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation 2181.01 DETERMINING WHETHER A CLAIM LIMITATION INVOKES 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or PRE-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, SIXTH PARAGRAPH 2181.02 DESCRIPTION NECESSARY TO SUPPORT ...more »

Submitted by (@justin.blaufeld)
1 comment

Voting

2 votes
2 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)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

600 Parts, Form, and Content of Application

error in 602.01(c)(1)

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

Submitted by (@fassepat)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

809.02(a) missing

Section 809.02(a) seems to have been left behind in the current version. If this was deliberate, an entry should be included in the Blue Pages.

Submitted by (@sean.burke)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

1200 Appeal

Typo: 1202

The downloadable PDF version of Chapter 1200 includes a typo in section 1202:

 

decisions mailed prior to September 16, 2102 should continue to be cited as decisions of the BPAI or its predecessor organizations

 

Presumably, 2102 should read 2012.

Submitted by (@rellinger)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting

806.05(d) Subcombinations Usable Together

This section indicates: "Two or more claimed subcombinations, disclosed as usable together in a single combination, and which can be shown to be separately usable, are usually restrictable when the subcombinations do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants. To support a restriction requirement where applicant separately claims plural subcombinations usable together in a single combination and claims a combination ...more »

Submitted by (@patricia.leith)
Add your comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

700 Examination of Applications

Error and/or ambiguity in 704.13: Time Periods for reply

The second paragraph of this section states that "Applicant may extend the time period of reply up to six months in accordance with 37 CFR 1.136(a)." As this is a paragraph describing the mailing of a requirement for information that is NOT part of an action on the merits, it is unclear to me whether the maximum statutory period for reply of six months is applicable. Regardless, as drafted it seems ambiguous to me; ...more »

Submitted by (@rellinger)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

700 Examination of Applications

Typo in 706.02(f)(1): date of changeover from FTI to FITF

The second paragraph of MPEP 706.02(f)(1), section II (the bottom of the right column on page 700-37) reads "all references to 35 USC 102 in the examples and flowcharts below are to the version of 35 USC 102 in effect on March 15, 2012 (the pre-AIA version)." While this is technically true, I believe that "March 15, 2012" was intended to read "March 15, 2013," one day before the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the ...more »

Submitted by (@rellinger)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active

700 Examination of Applications

Strange errors in 708.02(c)

The first (of two) paragraphs of section 708.02(c) (bottom of left column, page 700-175) contains several errors. I will just copy the erroneous text, but it includes capitalization errors, run-on sentences, and a mis-spelled word. Further, this section refers to an 'OSF' and 'OFF' without any local reference to what, specifically, those initialisms refer to. examination will not entitle the applicant to a refund of ...more »

Submitted by (@rellinger)
1 comment

Voting

1 vote
1 up votes
0 down votes
Active