What are the requirements for making a replacement or supplemental biological deposit?
When making a replacement or supplemental biological deposit, the following requirements must be met: The deposit must meet all the requirements for making an original deposit. It must be necessary to satisfy the requirements for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 112. The biological material must be specifically identified and described in the application as filed. The…
Read MoreCan an applicant replace a biological deposit with a different material in a pending application?
Yes, in a pending application, an applicant can replace a biological deposit with a different material, provided it meets certain conditions. According to MPEP 2407.01: “It should be noted that in a pending application, an applicant need not replace the identical material previously deposited, but may make an original deposit of a biological material which…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b)?
The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) are separate and distinct. As stated in the MPEP 2174: “The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or the first and second paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 are separate and distinct.” This means that a patent application must satisfy both requirements independently. To learn more:…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of biological deposits in patent applications?
Biological deposits in patent applications serve to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, which relates to the written description, enablement, and best mode requirements of patent law. As implied in MPEP 2407.03, deposits are considered necessary when: “…a deposit is considered to be necessary to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112…” The purpose…
Read MoreCan prophetic examples be used to satisfy the enablement requirement?
Yes, prophetic examples can be used to satisfy the enablement requirement in patent applications. The MPEP 2164.02 provides guidance on this: “Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be “working” or “prophetic.”” However, it’s…
Read MoreCan a process claim be rejected if it describes the function of a disclosed machine?
No, a process claim cannot be rejected solely because it describes the function of a disclosed machine. The MPEP 2173.05(v) clearly states: “Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, solely on the ground that they…
Read MoreHow do the requirements for patent specifications differ between pre-AIA and AIA applications?
The requirements for patent specifications under 35 U.S.C. 112 are similar for both pre-AIA (applications filed before September 16, 2012) and AIA (applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) applications, but there are some differences in the language and structure of the statute. For AIA applications, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) states: “The specification shall contain…
Read MoreWhat types of patent proceedings might require a replacement deposit?
Replacement deposits may be required in various types of patent proceedings where the original deposit is no longer viable or accessible. MPEP 2407.03 specifically mentions two types of proceedings: “…for example a reissue or reexamination proceeding, where a deposit is considered to be necessary to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112…” These proceedings include:…
Read MoreWhat does an examiner consider when reviewing a patent owner’s response with amendments?
When a patent owner’s response contains amendments, the examiner must consider specific legal issues. According to the MPEP: “If the patent owner response contains an amendment, the examiner will consider the amendment to determine whether the amendment raises issues of 35 U.S.C. 112 and/or broadening of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 314.” This means the…
Read MoreWhat happens if new matter is added to a pre-AIA application after March 16, 2013?
If new matter is added to a pre-AIA application after March 16, 2013, it does not change the application’s status, but it may lead to rejections. According to MPEP 2159.01: “If new matter is added via amendment, claims directed to the new matter will be rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. See MPEP…
Read More