MPEP § 2173.05(r) — Omnibus Claim (Annotated Rules)
§2173.05(r) Omnibus Claim
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2173.05(r), including statutory authority, regulatory rules, examiner guidance, and practice notes. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only, it is not legal advice.
Omnibus Claim
This section addresses Omnibus Claim. Primary authority: 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112. Contains: 1 guidance statement and 2 other statements.
Key Rules
Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h))
Some applications are filed with an omnibus claim which reads as follows: A device substantially as shown and described. This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. See Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), for a discussion of the history of omnibus claims and an explanation of why omnibus claims do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Some applications are filed with an omnibus claim which reads as follows: A device substantially as shown and described. This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. See Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), for a discussion of the history of omnibus claims and an explanation of why omnibus claims do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Omnibus Claim (MPEP 2173.05(r))
Some applications are filed with an omnibus claim which reads as follows: A device substantially as shown and described. This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. See Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), for a discussion of the history of omnibus claims and an explanation of why omnibus claims do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) Omnibus Claim (MPEP 2173.05(r)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112 |
| Alternative Limitations (MPEP 2173.05(h)) Omnibus Claim (MPEP 2173.05(r)) | 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) |
| – | MPEP § 2175 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.35 |
Source Text from USPTO’s MPEP
This is an exact copy of the MPEP from the USPTO. It is here for your reference to see the section in context.
Official MPEP § 2173.05(r) — Omnibus Claim
Source: USPTO2173.05(r) Omnibus Claim [R-10.2019]
Some applications are filed with an omnibus claim which reads as follows: A device substantially as shown and described. This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. See Ex parteFressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993), for a discussion of the history of omnibus claims and an explanation of why omnibus claims do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Such a claim can be rejected using form paragraph 7.35. See MPEP § 2175.