Memberships [ 2 ] [+]
Activity Stream [+]
Ideas Contributed [ 33 ] [+]
This is a followup to https://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Correction-of-Inventorship/549565-9426 by @zmthomas. I admit that I don't have nearly as much design-patent experience as some of my colleagues. Please let me know if I am missing something! I have searched sections 700, 800, and 1500 (Jan. 2018). The only ...more »
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 »
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)
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 »
MPEP 2106.04 (Jan. 2018) (at 2100-21, right column) quotes the original 2014 Guidance (79 FR 74618, 74622) that “A claim is directed to a judicial exception when ... an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim.” However, the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision specifically found that the “‘directed to’ inquiry ... cannot simply ask whether the claims *involve* a patent-ineligible concept.” ...more »
Jan. 2018, using Acrobat v11.0.23. In the index, on p. 35, left column, lines 4 and 6, the links to section 503 do not take me there when I click them. I checked them by going to Tools | Interactive Objects | Select Object, right-clicking each one in turn, and choosing Properties | Actions. The Action shows as "Go to a page in another document," which is correct. However, the File shows as "C:\(the path to the PDFs)\.pdf" ...more »
1. App. L (Jan. 2018) at L-29, left column, in 35 USC 119(a): comma placement:
, pursuant to which..."
pursuant to which..."
2. Id. at L-30, right column, 35 USC 120: spacing:
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385which"
"...or as provided by section 363 or 385 which"
(with space after "385")
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...".
Please see MPEP 2106.03, I. (Jan. 2018), at 18, right column. The second non-bulleted paragraph (“paragraph A”) begins: “Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category” (at 2100-19). Since paragraph A solely relates to Nuijten,* I suggest revising paragraph A to expressly relate to signals, and to clarify the meaning of “tangible.” For example, I propose revising paragraph ...more »
MPEP 1306 (Issue Fee) opens with "The issue fee ... [is] due 3 months from the date of the Notice of Allowance." However, as far as I know, the weekend rule of 35 USC 21(b) still extends the time period if it would otherwise end on a weekend. Could 1306 be amended to reference this statute, for completeness? 35 USC 151 Issue of Patent.--- (a) ... The notice shall specify a sum ... which shall be paid within 3 months ...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 »
Opening a new chapter! Not a situation I have personally encountered, but I just ran across this in 1122, II (p. 1100-11) (Jan. 2018): > A nonpublication request must be filed upon the filing of the > application. This is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived. So far, so good. But then: > The nonpublication request must also be included with the application > papers. The nonpublication request cannot ...more »