What are the key requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112 in patent examination?
35 U.S.C. 112 sets forth several important requirements for patent applications. According to MPEP 2103, the key requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112 are: 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Requirements: The claims must set forth the subject matter the inventor regards as the invention The claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention Claims must define…
Read MoreHow does 35 U.S.C. 112 apply to international design applications?
The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) apply to nonprovisional international design applications. As stated in the MPEP, “The requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) apply to nonprovisional international design applications. See 35 U.S.C. 389.” This means that international design applications must meet the same written description, enablement, and definiteness requirements as domestic…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between 35 U.S.C. 101 and other patentability requirements?
While 35 U.S.C. 101 is a crucial tool for determining patent eligibility, it is not the sole criterion for patentability. The MPEP clarifies: “Examiners are reminded that 35 U.S.C. 101 is not the sole tool for determining patentability; 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103 will provide additional tools for ensuring that…
Read MoreWhat are the common grounds for rejecting a plant patent claim?
Plant patent claims can be rejected on similar grounds as other patent types. The MPEP 1610 mentions two common grounds for rejection: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Novelty): A claim may be rejected if it fails to patentably distinguish over prior art. The following form paragraph may be used: “The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102…
Read MoreWhat are the key considerations for design patent drawings under 35 U.S.C. 112?
What are the key considerations for design patent drawings under 35 U.S.C. 112? When preparing design patent drawings, it’s crucial to consider the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. The MPEP 1504.04 states: “The drawing or photograph is the only permissible medium for illustrating the claimed design. … The drawing or photograph must disclose the design…
Read MoreHow can a serious examination burden be demonstrated in a restriction requirement?
A serious examination burden can be prima facie shown through appropriate explanation of non-prior art issues that are relevant to one invention but not to the other. According to MPEP 803: “Similarly, a serious examination burden, for example, may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101, pre-AIA…
Read More