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 »
I propose amending 706.03(a), form paragraph 7.05.015, to refer to the USPTO's web site for information not found in the Action. For example: (>>insertions<< marked)
the claimed... more »
For instance, I submitted my provisional application for an idea on my own and because i thought that i had to... more »
MPEP 1309.02 says applications with errors preventing issue "are placed on the examiner's 'expedited' tab in eDan and should be taken up for immediate action." We have not used eDan in several years, and I think it was even removed from our computers nearly four years ago. So "eDan" should be replaced either with "DAV" or "PE2E-DAV."
You need to add it back for two reasons.
First, the MPEP is supposed to reflect Office policy, and it is established Office policy that USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. Specifically, this policy is established by the precedential holding of Ex parte... more »
The word "comprised" is synonymous with "included" or "contained." It does not make sense to refer to claim limitations "comprised of" printed matter, because it does not make sense to refer to claim limitations being "included of" printed matter or "contained... more »
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!
For most petitions, the Applicant can submit a separate petition under 1.182 to request expedited consideration of the substantive petition. However, as far as I know, there is only one type of petition... more »
It would make a lot more... more »
The link for MPEP 1200 is currently: http://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/detail/manual/MPEP/current/d0e18.xml#/manual/MPEP/DC1_FPindexR-07.2015/d0e122292.xml
It would be helpful if it were something more like this: http://mpep.uspto.gov/e9r072015/MPEP/1200
The link for 35 USC 101 is currently:... more »
However, the first full citation to this case is missing its identification of the Federal Circuit in the last part of the citation. It just provides the year of the decision, which is the form that is usually reserved for when it is otherwise... more »
Eighteen portions of the newly-edited 2106 place periods outside of quotes. This is still not generally accepted in American grammar, and is inconsistent with the section as a whole (eighty-four instances of periods within the quoted text).
There are also twenty-five great number of commas outside of quotes (as opposed to thirty-two within).
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.
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