Memberships [ 1 ] [+]
Activity Stream [+]
Ideas Contributed [ 13 ] [+]
Design Section 1504.06 points to MPEP 804 (revised 2006) with regard to determining whether a one-way or a two-way double patenting rejections would be appropriate. I suggest that 1504.06 should instead refer to Section 1490, which was revised in 2008 and contains more up-to-date guidance on the topic of one-way or two-way non-statutory double patenting rejections.
The abstract length requirement in 1302.01 (limited to 150 words) is inconsistent with Abstract Example 2 in MPEP 608.01(b) section (E) which is 165 words in length.
The 703-308-XXXX telephone numbers listed as contacts on teh bottom of the PTO-166 form are no longer in service. See page 2400-53, section 2427, for the PTO form 166, last revised 7/97.
The final cross reference shown below should be corrected to say "MPEP 821" not MPEP 823.
>The sections of the MPEP relating to double patenting rejections (MPEP § 804), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 818), and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04) generally also apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. See MPEP § 823.<
Unity of invention section 1983.03(d) could be made clearer by incorporating Paragraph 20.09 of the ISPE Guidelines- unity is to be reconsidered upon claim amendment.
this section merits updating to reflect telephone practice for the USPTO's growing nationwide workforce and reduce emphasis on encouraging examiners to initiate interviews for practicitioners who have offices in the Washington area.
sections 301.01, 302.09 and Form SB/96 refer to reel and frame numbers. Do these sections and form need updating or is the USPTO still maintaining assignment information on micro-fiche?
its difficult to readily find section 201.03 when a rule 1.48 request for correction of inventorship is filed: sometimes these requests are filed as "petitions" and MPEP 1004 is silent as to who must review/sign off on a 1.48 request. Cross references between sections 201.03 and 1004 would be helpful.
When we copy text from the Insight version of MPEP, pesky carriage returns come along for the ride. Can this be addressed? Currently it requires tedious effort to delete the carriage returns from each line. if we don't delete the carriage returns, text appears as follows with funny spacing: 2.10.01 Continuation or Divisional Application Contains New Matter Relative to the Prior-Filed Application Applicant states ...more »
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 »
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 »
The last paragraph of 608.01(VI) states "Applications filed under 35 USC 371 are excluded from the prohibition from having the same tables in both the drawings as a figure and in the description portion of the specification." It would be helpful if this nugget of info were written in the positive and then linked to or easily found in section 1893 directed to filing requirements for national stage applications.