MPEP § 702.01 — Obviously Informal Cases (Annotated Rules)
§702.01 Obviously Informal Cases
This page consolidates and annotates all enforceable requirements under MPEP § 702.01, 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.
Obviously Informal Cases
This section addresses Obviously Informal Cases. Primary authority: 37 CFR 1.104. Contains: 2 requirements, 4 guidance statements, 1 permission, and 2 other statements.
Key Rules
Maintenance Fee Payment
It is to applicant’s advantage to file the application with an adequate disclosure and with claims which conform to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office usages and requirements. This should be done whenever possible. If, however, due to the pressure of a Convention deadline or other reasons, this is not possible, applicants are urged to submit promptly, preferably within 3 months after filing, a preliminary amendment which corrects the obvious informalities. The informalities should be corrected to the extent that the disclosure is readily understood and the claims to be initially examined are in proper form, particularly as to dependency, and otherwise clearly define the invention. “New matter” must be excluded from these amendments since preliminary amendments filed after the filing date of the application do not enjoy original disclosure status. See MPEP § 608.04(b).
It is to applicant’s advantage to file the application with an adequate disclosure and with claims which conform to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office usages and requirements. This should be done whenever possible. If, however, due to the pressure of a Convention deadline or other reasons, this is not possible, applicants are urged to submit promptly, preferably within 3 months after filing, a preliminary amendment which corrects the obvious informalities. The informalities should be corrected to the extent that the disclosure is readily understood and the claims to be initially examined are in proper form, particularly as to dependency, and otherwise clearly define the invention. “New matter” must be excluded from these amendments since preliminary amendments filed after the filing date of the application do not enjoy original disclosure status. See MPEP § 608.04(b).
It is to applicant’s advantage to file the application with an adequate disclosure and with claims which conform to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office usages and requirements. This should be done whenever possible. If, however, due to the pressure of a Convention deadline or other reasons, this is not possible, applicants are urged to submit promptly, preferably within 3 months after filing, a preliminary amendment which corrects the obvious informalities. The informalities should be corrected to the extent that the disclosure is readily understood and the claims to be initially examined are in proper form, particularly as to dependency, and otherwise clearly define the invention. “New matter” must be excluded from these amendments since preliminary amendments filed after the filing date of the application do not enjoy original disclosure status. See MPEP § 608.04(b).
Patent Application Content
The examiner should attempt to point out the points of informality in the specification and claims. The burden is on the applicant to revise the application to render it in proper form for a complete examination.
The examiner should attempt to point out the points of informality in the specification and claims. The burden is on the applicant to revise the application to render it in proper form for a complete examination.
Statutory Authority for Examination
35 U.S.C. 112 – Disclosure Requirements
When an application is taken up for examination and it is then discovered to be impractical to give a complete action on the merits because of an informal or insufficient disclosure, the following procedure may be followed:
…
(D) The claims should be rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112 if they are informal.
When an application is taken up for examination and it is then discovered to be impractical to give a complete action on the merits because of an informal or insufficient disclosure, the following procedure may be followed:
…
A blanket rejection is usually sufficient.
Fee Requirements
If a number of obviously informal claims are filed in an application, such claims should be treated as being a single claim for fee and examination purposes.
Complete Action Requirement
When an application is taken up for examination and it is then discovered to be impractical to give a complete action on the merits because of an informal or insufficient disclosure, the following procedure may be followed:
- (A) A reasonable search should be made of the invention so far as it can be understood from the disclosure, objects of invention and claims and any apparently pertinent art cited. In the rare case in which the disclosure is so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search, the Office action should clearly inform applicant that no search was made;
- (B) Any form that lists informalities and any additional formal requirements to be made should be included in the first Office action (see MPEP § 707.07(a));
- (C) A requirement should be made that the specification be revised to conform to idiomatic English and United States patent practice;
- (D) The claims should be rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112 if they are informal. A blanket rejection is usually sufficient.
Examiner Form Paragraphs
Examiner form paragraphs are standard language that you might see in an Office Action or communication from the USPTO. Examiners have latitude to change the form paragraphs, but you will often see this exact language.
A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: [1]
Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71 , as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: [1]
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure ( i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
- Examiner Must Search Invention When Terms Are Incongruous
- Examiner May Cite Art and Request Specification Clarification
- Requirement for Informal Disclosure Resolution
- Preliminary Amendment to Correct Informalities Promptly
- Disclosure and Claims Must Be Clearly Defined
- Preliminary Amendments Must Exclude New Matter
Citations
| Primary topic | Citation |
|---|---|
| 35 U.S.C. 112 – Disclosure Requirements Complete Action Requirement | 35 U.S.C. § 112 |
| Statutory Authority for Examination | 37 CFR § 1.104 |
| – | MPEP § 608.02(a) |
| Maintenance Fee Payment | MPEP § 608.04(b) |
| – | MPEP § 702.01 |
| Complete Action Requirement | MPEP § 707.07(a) |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.01 |
| – | Form Paragraph § 7.02 |
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 § 702.01 — Obviously Informal Cases
Source: USPTO702.01 Obviously Informal Cases [R-07.2015]
When an application is taken up for examination and it is then discovered to be impractical to give a complete action on the merits because of an informal or insufficient disclosure, the following procedure may be followed:
- (A) A reasonable search should be made of the invention so far as it can be understood from the disclosure, objects of invention and claims and any apparently pertinent art cited. In the rare case in which the disclosure is so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search, the Office action should clearly inform applicant that no search was made;
- (B) Any form that lists informalities and any additional formal requirements to be made should be included in the first Office action (see MPEP § 707.07(a));
- (C) A requirement should be made that the specification be revised to conform to idiomatic English and United States patent practice;
- (D) The claims should be rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112 if they are informal. A blanket rejection is usually sufficient.
The examiner should attempt to point out the points of informality in the specification and claims. The burden is on the applicant to revise the application to render it in proper form for a complete examination.
If a number of obviously informal claims are filed in an application, such claims should be treated as being a single claim for fee and examination purposes.
It is to applicant’s advantage to file the application with an adequate disclosure and with claims which conform to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office usages and requirements. This should be done whenever possible. If, however, due to the pressure of a Convention deadline or other reasons, this is not possible, applicants are urged to submit promptly, preferably within 3 months after filing, a preliminary amendment which corrects the obvious informalities. The informalities should be corrected to the extent that the disclosure is readily understood and the claims to be initially examined are in proper form, particularly as to dependency, and otherwise clearly define the invention. “New matter” must be excluded from these amendments since preliminary amendments filed after the filing date of the application do not enjoy original disclosure status. See MPEP § 608.04(b).
Whenever, upon examination, it is found that the terms or phrases or modes of characterization used to describe the invention are not sufficiently consonant with the art to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to enable the examiner to make the examination specified in 37 CFR 1.104, the examiner should make a reasonable search of the invention so far as it can be understood from the disclosure. The action of the examiner may be limited to a citation of what appears to be the most pertinent prior art found and a request that applicant correlate the terminology of the specification with art-accepted terminology before further action is made.
Use form paragraph 7.01 where the terminology is such that a proper search cannot be made.
¶ 7.01 Use of Unconventional Terminology, Cannot Be Examined
A preliminary examination of this application reveals that it includes terminology which is so different from that which is generally accepted in the art to which this invention pertains that a proper search of the prior art cannot be made. For example: [1]
Applicant is required to provide a clarification of these matters or correlation with art-accepted terminology so that a proper comparison with the prior art can be made. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
- 1. Use this or form paragraph 7.02 when a proper search cannot be made. However, see MPEP § 702.01 which requires a reasonable search.
- 2. In bracket 1, fill in an appropriate indication of the terminology, properties, units of data, etc. that are the problem as well as the pages of the specification involved.
- 3. For the procedure to be followed when the drawing is not acceptable, see MPEP §§ 608.02(a) and 608.02(b).
Use form paragraph 7.02 where the application is so incomprehensible that a reasonable search cannot be made.
¶ 7.02 Disclosure Is Incomprehensible
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: [1]
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter.
Examiner Note:
- 1. Use this form paragraph when a search cannot be made.
- 2. In bracket 1, indicate the page numbers and features which are not understood.
- 3. See form paragraphs 6.28 and 6.30 for improper idiomatic English.
- 4. Use form paragraphs 7.31.01 – 7.31.04, as appropriate, for a rejection of claims (when necessary) based on the deficiencies set forth in this form paragraph.
For the procedure to be followed when the drawing is not acceptable, see MPEP §§ 608.02(a) and 608.02(b).