MPEP § 2304.02(a) — Identifying the Other Application or Patent (Annotated Rules)
§2304.02(a) Identifying the Other Application or Patent
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 2304.02(a), 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.
Identifying the Other Application or Patent
This section addresses Identifying the Other Application or Patent. Primary authority: 37 CFR 41.202. Contains: 1 requirement, 1 guidance statement, 1 permission, and 1 other statement.
Key Rules
Declaration of Interference
Usually an applicant seeking an interference will know the application serial number or the patent number of the application or patent, respectively, with which it seeks an interference. If so, providing that number will fully meet the identification requirement of 37 CFR 41.202(a)(1).
Usually an applicant seeking an interference will know the application serial number or the patent number of the application or patent, respectively, with which it seeks an interference. If so, providing that number will fully meet the identification requirement of 37 CFR 41.202(a)(1).
Occasionally, an applicant will believe another interfering application exists based only on indirect evidence, for instance through a journal article, a “patent pending” notice, or a foreign published application. In such cases, information about likely named inventors and likely assignees may lead to the right application. The applicant should be motivated to help the examiner identify the application since inadequate information may prevent the declaration of the suggested interference.
Occasionally, an applicant will believe another interfering application exists based only on indirect evidence, for instance through a journal article, a “patent pending” notice, or a foreign published application. In such cases, information about likely named inventors and likely assignees may lead to the right application. The applicant should be motivated to help the examiner identify the application since inadequate information may prevent the declaration of the suggested interference.
Occasionally, an applicant will believe another interfering application exists based only on indirect evidence, for instance through a journal article, a “patent pending” notice, or a foreign published application. In such cases, information about likely named inventors and likely assignees may lead to the right application. The applicant should be motivated to help the examiner identify the application since inadequate information may prevent the declaration of the suggested interference.
Reissue Patent Practice
(a) Applicant. An applicant, including a reissue applicant, may suggest an interference with another application or a patent. The suggestion must:
- (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference,
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| Declaration of Interference | 37 CFR § 41.202(a)(1) |
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 § 2304.02(a) — Identifying the Other Application or Patent
Source: USPTO2304.02(a) Identifying the Other Application or Patent [R-08.2012]
37 CFR 41.202 Suggesting an interference.
- (a) Applicant. An applicant, including a reissue applicant,
may suggest an interference with another application or a patent. The
suggestion must:
- (1) Provide sufficient information to identify the application or patent with which the applicant seeks an interference,
*****
Usually an applicant seeking an interference will know the application serial number or the patent number of the application or patent, respectively, with which it seeks an interference. If so, providing that number will fully meet the identification requirement of 37 CFR 41.202(a)(1).
Occasionally, an applicant will believe another interfering application exists based only on indirect evidence, for instance through a journal article, a “patent pending” notice, or a foreign published application. In such cases, information about likely named inventors and likely assignees may lead to the right application. The applicant should be motivated to help the examiner identify the application since inadequate information may prevent the declaration of the suggested interference.