Q: What are the acceptable combinations of claims that maintain unity of invention?

According to MPEP 1850 , certain combinations of claims are considered to have unity of invention. As stated in 37 CFR 1.475(b), these combinations are: A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product A product and a process of use of said product A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process These combinations are considered to have a technical relationship involving the same or corresponding special technical features, thus fulfilling the requirement of unity of invention. It's important to note that if an application contains claims to more or less than one of these combinations, unity of invention might not be present. To learn more: unity of invention PCT application claim combinations technical relationship

Question 1

How should the "Disclosure of Invention" section be structured in a patent application?

Accepted Answer

The "Disclosure of Invention" section is a crucial part of a patent application. According to MPEP 1823, this section should be structured to provide a clear and complete description of the invention. The MPEP states:

"The invention must be disclosed in such a way as to allow the technical problem and the solution to be understood."

The structure of this section typically includes:

Technical Problem: Clearly state the problem the invention solves.
Solution to the Problem: Describe how the invention addresses the problem.
Advantageous Effects: Explain the benefits or improvements provided by the invention.
Brief Description of Drawings: If applicable, reference and briefly explain any drawings.
Best Mode: Disclose the best mode contemplated by the inventor for carrying out the invention.

The disclosure should be sufficiently detailed to enable a person skilled in the art to understand and implement the invention.

To learn more:

Question 2

What additional classification systems should patent examiners consider besides CPC?

Accepted Answer

While the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system is the primary search tool, patent examiners should also consider other classification systems. The MPEP 904.02(a) mentions:

"In addition to CPC, there are some other classification tools available such as the International Patent Classification (IPC) and the United States Patent Classification (USPC) system."

Examiners should utilize these additional systems to ensure a comprehensive search:

International Patent Classification (IPC)
United States Patent Classification (USPC)
Any other relevant specialized classification systems

Using multiple classification systems can help identify relevant prior art that might be missed by relying solely on CPC.

To learn more:

Question 3

How does the STIC assist with foreign patent searches?

Accepted Answer

The Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) plays a crucial role in assisting patent examiners with foreign patent searches. According to MPEP 901.06(a):

"STIC staff can assist examiners in searching the foreign patent databases." This service is particularly valuable because:

It provides access to patent documents from various countries
It helps overcome language barriers in searching foreign patents
It ensures a more comprehensive prior art search
It supports examiners in identifying relevant international patent documents

By offering assistance with foreign patent searches, the STIC helps examiners conduct thorough and global prior art searches, which is essential for maintaining the quality and integrity of the patent examination process.

To learn more:

Question 4

What is the role of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Legal Instrument Examiner (LIE) in processing reexamination decisions?

Accepted Answer

The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Legal Instrument Examiner (LIE) plays a crucial role in processing reexamination decisions. According to MPEP 2245:

"After the examiner has prepared the decision and proofread and signed the final version, the reexamination file and decision are forwarded to the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Legal Instrument Examiner (LIE) for coordinating the clerical processing carried out by the technical support staff."

The CRU LIE's responsibilities include:

Receiving the reexamination file and decision from the examiner
Coordinating the clerical processing of the decision
Overseeing the work of the technical support staff
Ensuring that all necessary documentation is properly handled and distributed

This role is essential in maintaining the efficiency and accuracy of the reexamination process, serving as a bridge between the examiner's decision-making and the administrative tasks required to process and distribute the decision.

To learn more:

Question 5

What claims are considered when deciding on an inter partes reexamination request?

Accepted Answer

The claims considered when deciding on an inter partes reexamination request are those in effect at the time of the determination. According to MPEP 2643, "The claims of the patent in effect at the time of the determination will be the basis for deciding whether 'a substantial new question of patentability' or 'a reasonable likelihood that the requester will prevail' is present." This means that the current, valid claims of the patent are examined, not any proposed amendments or claims from other proceedings.

To learn more:

Question 6

What is the process for obtaining pre-1957 patent assignment records?

Accepted Answer

Obtaining patent assignment records from before May 1, 1957, involves a different process than accessing more recent records. According to MPEP 301.01:

All records of assignments of patents recorded before May 1, 1957, are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The records are open to public inspection. Certified and uncertified copies of those assignment records are provided by NARA upon request and payment of the fees required by NARA.

The MPEP further advises:

Requests for copies of pre-1957 records for patents should be directed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Since these records are maintained by NARA, it is more expeditious to request copies directly from NARA, rather than from the Office, which would then have to route the requests to NARA.

To obtain these records:

Contact NARA directly.
Provide as much information as possible about the patent and assignment you're seeking.
Be prepared to pay the fees required by NARA.

The MPEP also notes: All assignment records from 1837 to April 30, 1957 for patents are now maintained and are open for public inspection in the National Archives Research Room located at the Washington National Records Center Building, 4205 Suitland Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746 and at the Civilian Records Division of the National Archives at College Park, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001.

For the most up-to-date information on accessing these records, it's recommended to check the National Archives website.

For more information on NARA, visit: NARA.

Question 7

What is unity of invention in patent applications?

Accepted Answer

Unity of invention is a principle applied in international and national stage patent applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. It determines whether multiple inventions can be included in a single application.

According to MPEP 1893.03(d), "The basic principle is that an application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, that applicant would have a right to include in a single application only those inventions which are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept."

Unity of invention is present when there is a technical relationship among the inventions involving at least one common or corresponding special technical feature.

To learn more:

Question 8

What are the acceptable combinations of claims that maintain unity of invention?

Accepted Answer

According to MPEP 1850, certain combinations of claims are considered to have unity of invention. As stated in 37 CFR 1.475(b), these combinations are:

A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product
A product and a process of use of said product
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product
A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process
A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process

These combinations are considered to have a technical relationship involving the same or corresponding special technical features, thus fulfilling the requirement of unity of invention.

It's important to note that if an application contains claims to more or less than one of these combinations, unity of invention might not be present.

To learn more:

Question 9

What specialized services does STIC offer for examiners?

Accepted Answer

The Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) offers several specialized services to support patent examiners:

Foreign patent document retrieval: STIC can obtain copies of foreign patent documents not available in USPTO databases.
Translations: STIC provides translations of foreign language patents and non-patent literature.
Scientific and Technical Literature: STIC maintains extensive collections of scientific and technical literature, including journals, books, and conference proceedings.
Prior Art Searches: STIC librarians can assist examiners with complex prior art searches.

As stated in MPEP 901.06(a): "STIC provides technical literature, foreign patents, NPL patents, database access and search experts to assist examiners in the patent examining process."

To learn more:

Question 10

How can I prevent the international publication of my patent application?

Accepted Answer

Preventing the international publication of a patent application is possible through timely withdrawal, as described in MPEP 1859 and PCT Rule 90bis. Here are the key points:

Withdraw the entire international application before the completion of technical preparations for publication.
Submit a notice of withdrawal to the International Bureau, receiving Office, or International Preliminary Examining Authority (if applicable).
Ensure the notice reaches the International Bureau before technical preparations are complete.

The MPEP states: "The applicant may prevent international publication by withdrawing the international application, provided that the notice of withdrawal reaches the International Bureau before the completion of technical preparations for that publication."

Additionally: "The notice of withdrawal may state that the withdrawal is to be effective only on the condition that international publication can still be prevented. In such a case the withdrawal is not effective if the condition on which it was made cannot be met - i.e., if the technical preparations for international publication have already been completed."

To learn more:

Search results for: Pass Guaranteed Quiz 2024 ISTQB CTAL-TTA: Fantastic Certified Tester Advanced Level Technical Test Analyst Valid Braindumps Pdf 🥩 Open website ⮆ www.pdfvce.com ⮄ and search for 「 CTAL-TTA 」 for free download 💯Real CTAL-TTA Question

How should the “Disclosure of Invention” section be structured in a patent application?

What additional classification systems should patent examiners consider besides CPC?

How does the STIC assist with foreign patent searches?

What is the role of the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) Legal Instrument Examiner (LIE) in processing reexamination decisions?

What claims are considered when deciding on an inter partes reexamination request?

What is the process for obtaining pre-1957 patent assignment records?

What is unity of invention in patent applications?

What are the acceptable combinations of claims that maintain unity of invention?

What specialized services does STIC offer for examiners?

How can I prevent the international publication of my patent application?