Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
" "Adapted For (1)
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
" "Whereby (1)
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
" "Wherein (1)
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
" And Contingent Clauses (1)
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
Amounts (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
And Proportions (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
First And Second Paragraphs (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (71)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
Product-by-process claims and method claims are distinct types of patent claims with different scopes and considerations:
- Product-by-process claims are directed to the product itself, defined by the process used to make it. The patentability is based on the product, not the process.
- Method claims are directed to the process or steps used to make a product or achieve a result.
According to MPEP 2113:
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art.”
Key differences include:
- Focus: Product-by-process claims focus on the end product; method claims focus on the process steps.
- Infringement: Product-by-process claims are infringed by identical products, regardless of how they’re made; method claims are infringed only when the specific steps are performed.
- Examination: Product-by-process claims are examined based on the product structure; method claims are examined based on the specific steps and their order.
Understanding these differences is crucial for proper claim drafting and patent strategy.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
Provisional applications can be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), but there are specific requirements. The MPEP states:
“Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the relied upon provisional application’s filing date.”
This means that for a provisional application’s filing date to be used as the effective date for prior art purposes:
- The later-filed patent must claim benefit to the provisional application
- At least one claim in the patent must be fully supported by the provisional application’s disclosure
- The support must meet the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
If these conditions are met, the provisional application’s filing date can be used as the effective date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
Antecedent basis is crucial for maintaining clarity in patent claims. The MPEP 2173.03 emphasizes its importance:
“Claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.”
Antecedent basis serves several important functions:
- Ensures clarity and definiteness of claim terms
- Provides a link between the claims and the specification
- Helps avoid indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
- Facilitates proper interpretation of claim scope
To maintain proper antecedent basis:
- Introduce elements in the claims with “a” or “an”
- Refer back to previously introduced elements with “the” or “said”
- Ensure that all claim terms have support in the specification
By maintaining proper antecedent basis, you can improve the overall quality and clarity of your patent application.
To learn more:
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
Yes, chemical compounds can be claimed by their characteristics when the structure is unknown. The MPEP 2173.05(t) provides this option:
“A compound of unknown structure may be claimed by a combination of physical and chemical characteristics.”
This approach is supported by legal precedent, such as Ex parte Brian. When structural information is unavailable or incomplete, describing a compound by its physical and chemical properties can be an effective way to claim it in a patent application. This method allows inventors to protect their discoveries even when full structural elucidation is not possible or practical.
To learn more:
According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance:
- Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.”
- Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.”
- Change: “‘Transformation’ of an article means that the ‘article’ has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article.”
The MPEP also notes: A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.
It’s important to note that purely mental processes or data manipulation are generally not considered eligible transformations: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
How does the USPTO handle situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application?
The USPTO has several mechanisms to address situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application. According to MPEP 2157:
- Derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135
- Correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48
- Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115
The MPEP states: “A situation in which an application names a person who is not the actual inventor as the inventor will be handled in a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, by a correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 to name the actual inventor, or through a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115, as appropriate.“
The appropriate action depends on the specific circumstances of the case and when the error is discovered.
To learn more:
While “use” claims are generally problematic in US patent applications, there are rare instances where they might be acceptable:
- Certain process claims: If the claim clearly implies the steps involved, it might be considered definite. However, this is risky and not recommended.
- Product-by-process claims: These are not strictly “use” claims but can describe a product in terms of the process used to make it.
The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: ‘The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.’ In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the following claim was held definite and proper: ‘The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.’“
Despite these exceptions, it’s generally safer and more effective to draft claims as method or product claims to avoid potential indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are:
- Identify and evaluate each claim limitation:
- For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed
- For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials
- Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure:
- Match each claim limitation to portions of the specification that describe it
- Do this for all claims, including those using means- (or step-) plus-function language
- Interpret claims using broadest reasonable interpretation:
- Consider the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art
- Evaluate any limiting effect of claim language
- Consider every limitation in the claim:
- Evaluate the claim as a whole, not as isolated elements
The MPEP emphasizes, The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention.
It’s important to note that examiners should not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered.
To learn more:
Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:
If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.
(MPEP 2133.03(c))
This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.
To learn more:
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
Transitional phrases in patent claims are crucial as they define the scope of a claim with respect to additional components or steps. The MPEP states, The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.
These phrases determine whether a claim is open-ended or closed to additional elements.
The interpretation of these phrases can significantly impact the breadth of patent protection and how the claim is interpreted during patent examination or litigation.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo framework, as discussed in MPEP 2106, has significant implications for software and business method patents. This framework, established by the Supreme Court decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has made it more challenging to obtain patents for certain types of software and business methods.
Key implications include:
- Increased scrutiny: Software and business method patents face heightened scrutiny under the Alice/Mayo framework, particularly regarding abstract ideas.
- Focus on technical improvements: Claims that demonstrate a technical improvement or solve a technical problem are more likely to be found eligible.
- Importance of practical application: Software and business method inventions that integrate abstract ideas into practical applications are more likely to be patent-eligible.
- Detailed claim drafting: Claims must be carefully drafted to emphasize technical elements and avoid being characterized as merely implementing abstract ideas on generic computer components.
The MPEP notes: “The courts have found software and business method claims ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in some instances, but not in others. It is important to remember that a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, or other judicial exception in a claim does not automatically render the claim as a whole ineligible for patenting.“
Applicants and practitioners must carefully consider the Alice/Mayo framework when drafting and prosecuting software and business method patent applications to improve their chances of obtaining patent protection.
To learn more:
Form paragraphs are standardized text blocks used by patent examiners to communicate rejections in patent applications. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, specific form paragraphs are used to address various issues of indefiniteness in claims.
According to the MPEP, Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.10, 7.34.12 through 7.34.15, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
These form paragraphs cover a range of issues, from failure to claim the inventor’s invention to the use of relative terms or trademarks in claims.
To learn more:
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
In patent claims, particularly for apparatus claims, the phrases “capable of” and “configured to” can have different implications:
- “Capable of” generally refers to an inherent ability or potential of the structure to perform a function, even if it’s not specifically designed for that purpose.
- “Configured to” implies that the structure is specifically designed or arranged to perform the stated function.
According to MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” This means that the capability of a prior art device to perform the claimed function is often sufficient to anticipate the claim, regardless of whether it’s explicitly stated to be “configured to” perform that function.
However, “configured to” language may be given more weight if it implies structural modifications that are not present in a prior art reference that is merely “capable of” performing the function.
To learn more:
In product-by-process claim rejections, the burden of proof is initially on the patent examiner, but it’s lower than for conventional product claims. According to MPEP 2113:
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.
Once the examiner provides a rationale showing that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to a prior art product, the burden shifts to the applicant. The applicant must then provide evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
To learn more:
What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02:
“The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically state the subject matter of the invention and the field of the invention. The agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, but it does not have to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying upon the joint research agreement is submitted.”
To constitute a valid joint research agreement, the following elements must be present:
- Written agreement
- Signed by all parties
- Specification of the subject matter of the invention
- Indication of the field of the invention
- In effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
It’s important to note that while the agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date, it doesn’t need to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying on the agreement is submitted.
To learn more:
Amendments to correct obvious errors in patent applications do not constitute new matter under certain conditions. The MPEP Section 2163.07 provides guidance:
“An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction.”
This means that if a person skilled in the relevant field would both recognize the error and know how to correct it based on the original application, fixing such an error is not considered new matter. However, it’s important to note that the error and its correction must be obvious to avoid introducing unintended changes to the application.
To learn more:
What are the Graham factors in patent obviousness analysis?
The Graham factors, established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., are four key considerations used in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. These factors are:
- The scope and content of the prior art
- The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention
- The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
- Objective evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations)
As stated in MPEP 2141: “The Graham factual inquiries … are to be considered when making a determination of obviousness.” Examiners must consider these factors when evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious in light of the prior art.
To learn more:
Interchangeability plays a crucial role in determining equivalence in patent examination. It is one of the factors that support a conclusion that a prior art element is an equivalent to a claimed limitation. Specifically:
MPEP 2183 states: “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.“
This means that if a person with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider the prior art element and the claimed element to be interchangeable, it supports the argument for equivalence. Examiners may cite this factor when making a prima facie case of equivalence, and it’s an important consideration for both applicants and examiners in patent prosecution.
To learn more:
“Lack of antecedent basis” refers to a situation in patent claims where a term is used without proper introduction or reference to a previously mentioned element. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(e):
“The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to ‘said lever’ or ‘the lever,’ where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.”
This issue can lead to indefiniteness in claims, potentially rendering them unclear and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
What is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language?
The use of ‘the’ versus ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language is significant for establishing proper antecedent basis. According to MPEP 2173.05(e):
“Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”
Generally, ‘a’ or ‘an’ is used when introducing an element for the first time, while ‘the’ is used for subsequent references to that element. However, the MPEP acknowledges that the absence of explicit antecedent basis doesn’t always make a claim indefinite. The key is whether the scope of the claim remains reasonably clear to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The use of new terminology in patent claims can make it challenging to compare the claimed invention with prior art. The MPEP acknowledges this difficulty in MPEP 2173.05(a):
“Although it is difficult to compare the claimed invention with the prior art when new terms are used that do not appear in the prior art, this does not make the new terms indefinite.”
Key points to consider:
- New terms are often necessary when describing new technologies or rapidly evolving fields.
- The difficulty in comparison doesn’t automatically make the new terms indefinite.
- Examiners must still assess whether the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the invention’s utilization and scope.
- The language should be as precise as the subject matter permits.
While new terminology can complicate prior art comparisons, it’s the examiner’s job to determine if the claims are clear and supported by the specification, regardless of the specific terms used.
To learn more:
The standard for indefiniteness in patent claims is based on the “reasonable certainty” test established by the Supreme Court. As stated in MPEP 2173.02:
“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, would inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
This standard requires that the claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. The definiteness requirement strikes a balance between the inherent limitations of language and the need for clear patent boundaries.
To learn more:
The standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled is based on the ability of a skilled person to identify operative and inoperative embodiments without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2164.08(b):
“The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.”
This standard, derived from the Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. case, emphasizes that the key factor is the level of effort required to identify operative embodiments, not merely the presence of inoperative ones.
To learn more:
The USPTO uses a two-step process to determine if a claim recites an abstract idea:
- Evaluate the claim language: Examiners analyze the claim to identify any concepts that may be abstract ideas.
- Compare to established abstract idea categories: The identified concepts are compared to the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas and previous court decisions.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a): “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”
To learn more:
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
While prophetic examples can be valuable in patent applications, they also come with certain risks that applicants should be aware of:
- Potential for Inequitable Conduct: If prophetic examples are not clearly distinguished from working examples, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead the USPTO.
- Enablement Challenges: Overly speculative or implausible prophetic examples may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement.
- Prior Art Issues: Prophetic examples may inadvertently disclose ideas that could later be used as prior art against the applicant or others.
- Credibility Concerns: Excessive use of prophetic examples without supporting data may raise doubts about the invention’s viability.
The MPEP 2164.02 cautions: “Care should be taken to ensure that prophetic examples are not presented in such a way as to mislead the reader into concluding that they are actual examples.” It’s crucial to clearly differentiate prophetic examples and ensure they are reasonable based on the known scientific principles and the state of the art.
To learn more:
The MPEP provides several examples of concepts and products that courts have identified as laws of nature or natural phenomena, which are not patentable. Some of these include:
- Isolated DNA
- Cloned farm animals
- Correlations between DNA variations and allele presence
- Metabolic correlations in the body
- Mathematical formulas (e.g., E=mc²)
- Electromagnetic signals
- Qualities of bacteria
- Single-stranded DNA fragments (primers)
- Chemical principles
- Cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood
The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) states: “[A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter under Section 101. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc²; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”
These examples illustrate that naturally occurring phenomena and fundamental scientific principles are generally not eligible for patent protection.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim:
- Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
- Lack of Support or Enablement: If the claim is not supported by the original description or lacks an enabling disclosure, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
- Prior Art: If the claim is so broad that it reads on prior art, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
The MPEP states: “Undue breadth of the claim may be addressed under different statutory provisions, depending on the reasons for concluding that the claim is too broad.“
Examiners will analyze the claim language, specification, and prior art to make these determinations. It’s important to note that breadth alone does not make a claim too broad; the issue arises when the breadth leads to indefiniteness, lack of support, or overlap with prior art.
To learn more:
Before conducting an enablement analysis, it is crucial for the examiner to construe the claims. The MPEP 2164.04 emphasizes this point:
“Before any analysis of enablement can occur, it is necessary for the examiner to construe the claims.“
For terms that are not well-known in the art or could have multiple meanings, the examiner must:
- Select the definition they intend to use when examining the application
- Base this definition on their understanding of what the applicant intends it to mean
- Explicitly set forth the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim when writing an Office action
This step is crucial because the enablement requirement is directly related to the scope of the claims, and a proper understanding of the claim terms is necessary to assess whether the disclosure enables the full scope of the claimed invention.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
Yes, patent examiners can and often do suggest amendments to claims to address written description issues. This practice is encouraged as part of the examination process to help applicants overcome rejections and move their applications forward.
The MPEP 2163.04 states:
“When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description.”
However, examiners must be careful not to suggest amendments that would introduce new matter into the application. Any suggested amendments must be fully supported by the original disclosure to comply with the written description requirement and avoid new matter issues.
This guidance encourages a collaborative approach between examiners and applicants to resolve written description issues while maintaining the integrity of the patent application.
To learn more:
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
The effect of the preamble on claim interpretation is determined on a case-by-case basis. As stated in MPEP 2111.02, “The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
Generally, the preamble limits the claim if:
- It recites essential structure or steps
- It’s necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
- It’s used to define the scope of the claimed invention
As the Federal Circuit stated in Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”
To learn more:
If the specification doesn’t provide adequate support or antecedent basis for claim terms, an examiner can take several actions. According to MPEP 2173.03:
“If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).”
The examiner’s actions may include:
- Objecting to the specification under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)
- Requiring the applicant to make appropriate amendments to the description
- Asking the applicant to amend the claims
The MPEP further states:
“Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.”
It’s important to note that any amendments to the specification must not introduce new matter, as this would violate 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
To learn more:
New or amended claims can face written description issues if they introduce elements not supported by the original disclosure. The MPEP 2163.03 states:
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Key issues that can arise include:
- Adding new limitations not described in the original specification
- Broadening claim scope beyond what was originally disclosed
- Introducing new combinations of elements not originally presented
To avoid these issues, applicants should ensure that any new or amended claims are fully supported by the original disclosure, either explicitly or implicitly. If support is not clear, applicants may need to provide explanations or point to specific parts of the original disclosure that provide the necessary support.
To learn more:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The “ready for patenting” requirement is the second prong of the Pfaff test for determining if an invention was “on sale” for the purposes of the on-sale bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(b), an invention is “ready for patenting” when either:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.
This requirement ensures that the invention was sufficiently developed at the time of the offer for sale. It prevents inventors from claiming the on-sale bar doesn’t apply because the invention wasn’t complete, even if they were commercially exploiting the concept.
To learn more:
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach:
“The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that ‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”
The TSM test applies in obviousness determinations as follows:
- Examiners must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references.
- This reason can come from the prior art itself, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved.
- The motivation does not need to be explicitly stated in the references but can be implied from the prior art as a whole.
- While TSM is not the only way to establish obviousness, it provides a structured approach to support the rationale for combining references.
Examiners should use the TSM test as one of several tools to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for obviousness rejections.
To learn more:
What role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention?
35 U.S.C. 112(b) plays a crucial role in determining the subject matter of an invention by requiring clarity and precision in patent claims. According to MPEP 2172:
“35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that the specification conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
This statute ensures that:
- Claims clearly define the boundaries of the invention
- The public can understand the scope of the patent protection
- Examiners can accurately assess patentability
If claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they may be rejected as indefinite. This emphasizes the importance of drafting claims that precisely capture the invention’s subject matter while being understandable to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
A continuation-in-part (CIP) application with an additional inventor can still be considered “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP provides an example in MPEP 2136.04:
“Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was ‘by another’ and thus could be used in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) / 103 rejection of the application.).”
This means that even if a CIP application shares inventors with its parent patent, the addition of a new inventor makes the inventive entities different, allowing the parent patent to be used as prior art against the CIP under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
Yes, a claim preamble can provide antecedent basis for claim limitations, but this depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the invention. The MPEP 2173.05(e) states:
“The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
While this statement is not specifically about antecedent basis, it underscores the importance of the preamble in claim interpretation. In practice:
- If the preamble is considered to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, it can provide antecedent basis for later claim elements.
- Elements introduced in the preamble can be referred to later in the claim body using “the” or “said” if they are essential to the invention.
- However, if the preamble merely states the intended use or field of use, it may not provide proper antecedent basis for claim limitations.
For example, in a claim starting with “A method of treating diabetes comprising…”, the term “diabetes” could potentially provide antecedent basis for later references to “the disease” or “said condition” in the claim body, if diabetes is central to the invention.
It’s important to note that while preambles can provide antecedent basis, it’s often clearer and safer to introduce key elements in the body of the claim to avoid any ambiguity.
To learn more:
To determine whether your patent application is subject to AIA (America Invents Act) or pre-AIA laws, you need to consider the effective filing date of your claimed invention. According to MPEP 2159:
“Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention for purposes of applying AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions is critical.”
To determine which laws apply:
- Identify the effective filing date of your claimed invention.
- If the effective filing date is on or after March 16, 2013, your application is subject to AIA laws.
- If the effective filing date is before March 16, 2013, your application is subject to pre-AIA laws.
- For applications with multiple claims, if any claim has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the entire application is subject to AIA laws.
Consult with a patent attorney or agent for a precise determination, as the effective filing date can be affected by factors such as priority claims, continuation applications, and the specific content of the application.
To learn more:
Transitional phrases play a crucial role in patent claim construction by defining the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2111.03, transitional phrases “define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.”
The significance of transitional phrases includes:
- Determining claim scope: They indicate whether the claim is open-ended or closed, affecting what elements can be included in the claimed invention.
- Infringement analysis: The choice of transitional phrase impacts how potential infringement is evaluated.
- Patentability assessment: Examiners use transitional phrases to understand the boundaries of the claimed invention when comparing it to prior art.
For example, the phrase “comprising” in “A composition comprising X, Y, and Z” allows for additional, unrecited elements, while “consisting of” in “A mixture consisting of A and B” excludes any elements not specified.
Understanding and correctly using transitional phrases is essential for patent drafters, examiners, and litigators to accurately define and interpret the scope of patent claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2103 – Patent Examination Process (1)
Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are:
- Identify and evaluate each claim limitation:
- For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed
- For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials
- Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure:
- Match each claim limitation to portions of the specification that describe it
- Do this for all claims, including those using means- (or step-) plus-function language
- Interpret claims using broadest reasonable interpretation:
- Consider the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art
- Evaluate any limiting effect of claim language
- Consider every limitation in the claim:
- Evaluate the claim as a whole, not as isolated elements
The MPEP emphasizes, The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention.
It’s important to note that examiners should not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106 – Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (2)
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo framework, as discussed in MPEP 2106, has significant implications for software and business method patents. This framework, established by the Supreme Court decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has made it more challenging to obtain patents for certain types of software and business methods.
Key implications include:
- Increased scrutiny: Software and business method patents face heightened scrutiny under the Alice/Mayo framework, particularly regarding abstract ideas.
- Focus on technical improvements: Claims that demonstrate a technical improvement or solve a technical problem are more likely to be found eligible.
- Importance of practical application: Software and business method inventions that integrate abstract ideas into practical applications are more likely to be patent-eligible.
- Detailed claim drafting: Claims must be carefully drafted to emphasize technical elements and avoid being characterized as merely implementing abstract ideas on generic computer components.
The MPEP notes: “The courts have found software and business method claims ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in some instances, but not in others. It is important to remember that a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, or other judicial exception in a claim does not automatically render the claim as a whole ineligible for patenting.“
Applicants and practitioners must carefully consider the Alice/Mayo framework when drafting and prosecuting software and business method patent applications to improve their chances of obtaining patent protection.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(A) – Abstract Ideas (3)
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
The USPTO uses a two-step process to determine if a claim recites an abstract idea:
- Evaluate the claim language: Examiners analyze the claim to identify any concepts that may be abstract ideas.
- Compare to established abstract idea categories: The identified concepts are compared to the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas and previous court decisions.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a): “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”
To learn more:
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.04(B) – Laws Of Nature (1)
The MPEP provides several examples of concepts and products that courts have identified as laws of nature or natural phenomena, which are not patentable. Some of these include:
- Isolated DNA
- Cloned farm animals
- Correlations between DNA variations and allele presence
- Metabolic correlations in the body
- Mathematical formulas (e.g., E=mc²)
- Electromagnetic signals
- Qualities of bacteria
- Single-stranded DNA fragments (primers)
- Chemical principles
- Cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood
The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) states: “[A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter under Section 101. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc²; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”
These examples illustrate that naturally occurring phenomena and fundamental scientific principles are generally not eligible for patent protection.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05 – Eligibility Step 2B: Whether A Claim Amounts To Significantly More (1)
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05(B) – Particular Machine (1)
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2106.05(C) – Particular Transformation (1)
According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance:
- Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.”
- Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.”
- Change: “‘Transformation’ of an article means that the ‘article’ has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article.”
The MPEP also notes: A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.
It’s important to note that purely mental processes or data manipulation are generally not considered eligible transformations: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation.
To learn more:
MPEP 2107 – Guidelines For Examination Of Applications For Compliance With The Utility Requirement (1)
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
MPEP 2109 – Inventorship (1)
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
MPEP 2111.02 – Effect Of Preamble (1)
The effect of the preamble on claim interpretation is determined on a case-by-case basis. As stated in MPEP 2111.02, “The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
Generally, the preamble limits the claim if:
- It recites essential structure or steps
- It’s necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
- It’s used to define the scope of the claimed invention
As the Federal Circuit stated in Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”
To learn more:
MPEP 2111.03 – Transitional Phrases (3)
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
Transitional phrases in patent claims are crucial as they define the scope of a claim with respect to additional components or steps. The MPEP states, The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.
These phrases determine whether a claim is open-ended or closed to additional elements.
The interpretation of these phrases can significantly impact the breadth of patent protection and how the claim is interpreted during patent examination or litigation.
To learn more:
Transitional phrases play a crucial role in patent claim construction by defining the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2111.03, transitional phrases “define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.”
The significance of transitional phrases includes:
- Determining claim scope: They indicate whether the claim is open-ended or closed, affecting what elements can be included in the claimed invention.
- Infringement analysis: The choice of transitional phrase impacts how potential infringement is evaluated.
- Patentability assessment: Examiners use transitional phrases to understand the boundaries of the claimed invention when comparing it to prior art.
For example, the phrase “comprising” in “A composition comprising X, Y, and Z” allows for additional, unrecited elements, while “consisting of” in “A mixture consisting of A and B” excludes any elements not specified.
Understanding and correctly using transitional phrases is essential for patent drafters, examiners, and litigators to accurately define and interpret the scope of patent claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2111.04 – "Adapted To (1)
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
MPEP 2112 – Requirements Of Rejection Based On Inherency; Burden Of Proof (1)
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
MPEP 2113 – Product – By – Process Claims (2)
Product-by-process claims and method claims are distinct types of patent claims with different scopes and considerations:
- Product-by-process claims are directed to the product itself, defined by the process used to make it. The patentability is based on the product, not the process.
- Method claims are directed to the process or steps used to make a product or achieve a result.
According to MPEP 2113:
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art.”
Key differences include:
- Focus: Product-by-process claims focus on the end product; method claims focus on the process steps.
- Infringement: Product-by-process claims are infringed by identical products, regardless of how they’re made; method claims are infringed only when the specific steps are performed.
- Examination: Product-by-process claims are examined based on the product structure; method claims are examined based on the specific steps and their order.
Understanding these differences is crucial for proper claim drafting and patent strategy.
To learn more:
In product-by-process claim rejections, the burden of proof is initially on the patent examiner, but it’s lower than for conventional product claims. According to MPEP 2113:
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.
Once the examiner provides a rationale showing that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to a prior art product, the burden shifts to the applicant. The applicant must then provide evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 – Apparatus And Article Claims — Functional Language (3)
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
In patent claims, particularly for apparatus claims, the phrases “capable of” and “configured to” can have different implications:
- “Capable of” generally refers to an inherent ability or potential of the structure to perform a function, even if it’s not specifically designed for that purpose.
- “Configured to” implies that the structure is specifically designed or arranged to perform the stated function.
According to MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” This means that the capability of a prior art device to perform the claimed function is often sufficient to anticipate the claim, regardless of whether it’s explicitly stated to be “configured to” perform that function.
However, “configured to” language may be given more weight if it implies structural modifications that are not present in a prior art reference that is merely “capable of” performing the function.
To learn more:
MPEP 2121 – Prior Art; General Level Of Operability Required To Make A Prima Facie Case (1)
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.02 – Rejections Based On Publications And Patents (1)
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(B) – "On Sale" (2)
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
The “ready for patenting” requirement is the second prong of the Pfaff test for determining if an invention was “on sale” for the purposes of the on-sale bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(b), an invention is “ready for patenting” when either:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.
This requirement ensures that the invention was sufficiently developed at the time of the offer for sale. It prevents inventors from claiming the on-sale bar doesn’t apply because the invention wasn’t complete, even if they were commercially exploiting the concept.
To learn more:
MPEP 2133.03(C) – The "Invention" (1)
Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:
If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.
(MPEP 2133.03(c))
This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.
To learn more:
MPEP 2136.02 – Content Of The Prior Art Available Against The Claims (2)
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
Provisional applications can be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), but there are specific requirements. The MPEP states:
“Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the relied upon provisional application’s filing date.”
This means that for a provisional application’s filing date to be used as the effective date for prior art purposes:
- The later-filed patent must claim benefit to the provisional application
- At least one claim in the patent must be fully supported by the provisional application’s disclosure
- The support must meet the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
If these conditions are met, the provisional application’s filing date can be used as the effective date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
MPEP 2136.04 – Different Inventive Entity; Meaning Of "By Another" (1)
A continuation-in-part (CIP) application with an additional inventor can still be considered “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP provides an example in MPEP 2136.04:
“Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was ‘by another’ and thus could be used in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) / 103 rejection of the application.).”
This means that even if a CIP application shares inventors with its parent patent, the addition of a new inventor makes the inventive entities different, allowing the parent patent to be used as prior art against the CIP under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
MPEP 2138.04 – "Conception" (1)
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
MPEP 2141 – Examination Guidelines For Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 (1)
What are the Graham factors in patent obviousness analysis?
The Graham factors, established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., are four key considerations used in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. These factors are:
- The scope and content of the prior art
- The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention
- The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
- Objective evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations)
As stated in MPEP 2141: “The Graham factual inquiries … are to be considered when making a determination of obviousness.” Examiners must consider these factors when evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious in light of the prior art.
To learn more:
MPEP 2141.01(A) – Analogous And Nonanalogous Art (1)
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
MPEP 2143 – Examples Of Basic Requirements Of A Prima Facie Case Of Obviousness (1)
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach:
“The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that ‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”
The TSM test applies in obviousness determinations as follows:
- Examiners must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references.
- This reason can come from the prior art itself, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved.
- The motivation does not need to be explicitly stated in the references but can be implied from the prior art as a whole.
- While TSM is not the only way to establish obviousness, it provides a structured approach to support the rationale for combining references.
Examiners should use the TSM test as one of several tools to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for obviousness rejections.
To learn more:
MPEP 2144.05 – Obviousness Of Similar And Overlapping Ranges (3)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2146.02 – Establishing Common Ownership Or Joint Research Agreement Under Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 103(C) (1)
What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02:
“The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically state the subject matter of the invention and the field of the invention. The agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, but it does not have to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying upon the joint research agreement is submitted.”
To constitute a valid joint research agreement, the following elements must be present:
- Written agreement
- Signed by all parties
- Specification of the subject matter of the invention
- Indication of the field of the invention
- In effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
It’s important to note that while the agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date, it doesn’t need to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying on the agreement is submitted.
To learn more:
MPEP 2152.05 – Determining Whether To Apply 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) Or 102(A)(2) (1)
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
MPEP 2154.01(B) – Determining When Subject Matter Was Effectively Filed Under Aia 35 U.S.C. 102(D) (1)
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
MPEP 2157 – Improper Naming Of Inventors (1)
How does the USPTO handle situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application?
The USPTO has several mechanisms to address situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application. According to MPEP 2157:
- Derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135
- Correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48
- Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115
The MPEP states: “A situation in which an application names a person who is not the actual inventor as the inventor will be handled in a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, by a correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 to name the actual inventor, or through a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115, as appropriate.“
The appropriate action depends on the specific circumstances of the case and when the error is discovered.
To learn more:
MPEP 2159 – Applicability Date Provisions And Determining Whether An Application Is Subject To The First Inventor To File Provisions Of The Aia (1)
To determine whether your patent application is subject to AIA (America Invents Act) or pre-AIA laws, you need to consider the effective filing date of your claimed invention. According to MPEP 2159:
“Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention for purposes of applying AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions is critical.”
To determine which laws apply:
- Identify the effective filing date of your claimed invention.
- If the effective filing date is on or after March 16, 2013, your application is subject to AIA laws.
- If the effective filing date is before March 16, 2013, your application is subject to pre-AIA laws.
- For applications with multiple claims, if any claim has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the entire application is subject to AIA laws.
Consult with a patent attorney or agent for a precise determination, as the effective filing date can be affected by factors such as priority claims, continuation applications, and the specific content of the application.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.03 – Typical Circumstances Where Adequate Written Description Issue Arises (2)
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
New or amended claims can face written description issues if they introduce elements not supported by the original disclosure. The MPEP 2163.03 states:
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Key issues that can arise include:
- Adding new limitations not described in the original specification
- Broadening claim scope beyond what was originally disclosed
- Introducing new combinations of elements not originally presented
To avoid these issues, applicants should ensure that any new or amended claims are fully supported by the original disclosure, either explicitly or implicitly. If support is not clear, applicants may need to provide explanations or point to specific parts of the original disclosure that provide the necessary support.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.04 – Burden On The Examiner With Regard To The Written Description Requirement (2)
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
Yes, patent examiners can and often do suggest amendments to claims to address written description issues. This practice is encouraged as part of the examination process to help applicants overcome rejections and move their applications forward.
The MPEP 2163.04 states:
“When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description.”
However, examiners must be careful not to suggest amendments that would introduce new matter into the application. Any suggested amendments must be fully supported by the original disclosure to comply with the written description requirement and avoid new matter issues.
This guidance encourages a collaborative approach between examiners and applicants to resolve written description issues while maintaining the integrity of the patent application.
To learn more:
MPEP 2163.07 – Amendments To Application Which Are Supported In The Original Description (1)
Amendments to correct obvious errors in patent applications do not constitute new matter under certain conditions. The MPEP Section 2163.07 provides guidance:
“An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction.”
This means that if a person skilled in the relevant field would both recognize the error and know how to correct it based on the original application, fixing such an error is not considered new matter. However, it’s important to note that the error and its correction must be obvious to avoid introducing unintended changes to the application.
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.02 – Working And Prophetic Examples (1)
While prophetic examples can be valuable in patent applications, they also come with certain risks that applicants should be aware of:
- Potential for Inequitable Conduct: If prophetic examples are not clearly distinguished from working examples, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead the USPTO.
- Enablement Challenges: Overly speculative or implausible prophetic examples may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement.
- Prior Art Issues: Prophetic examples may inadvertently disclose ideas that could later be used as prior art against the applicant or others.
- Credibility Concerns: Excessive use of prophetic examples without supporting data may raise doubts about the invention’s viability.
The MPEP 2164.02 cautions: “Care should be taken to ensure that prophetic examples are not presented in such a way as to mislead the reader into concluding that they are actual examples.” It’s crucial to clearly differentiate prophetic examples and ensure they are reasonable based on the known scientific principles and the state of the art.
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.04 – Burden On The Examiner Under The Enablement Requirement (1)
Before conducting an enablement analysis, it is crucial for the examiner to construe the claims. The MPEP 2164.04 emphasizes this point:
“Before any analysis of enablement can occur, it is necessary for the examiner to construe the claims.“
For terms that are not well-known in the art or could have multiple meanings, the examiner must:
- Select the definition they intend to use when examining the application
- Base this definition on their understanding of what the applicant intends it to mean
- Explicitly set forth the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim when writing an Office action
This step is crucial because the enablement requirement is directly related to the scope of the claims, and a proper understanding of the claim terms is necessary to assess whether the disclosure enables the full scope of the claimed invention.
To learn more:
MPEP 2164.08(B) – Inoperative Subject Matter (1)
The standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled is based on the ability of a skilled person to identify operative and inoperative embodiments without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2164.08(b):
“The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.”
This standard, derived from the Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. case, emphasizes that the key factor is the level of effort required to identify operative embodiments, not merely the presence of inoperative ones.
To learn more:
MPEP 2165.02 – Best Mode Requirement Compared To Enablement Requirement (2)
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
MPEP 2172 – Subject Matter Which The Inventor Or A Joint Inventor Regards As The Invention (1)
What role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention?
35 U.S.C. 112(b) plays a crucial role in determining the subject matter of an invention by requiring clarity and precision in patent claims. According to MPEP 2172:
“35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that the specification conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
This statute ensures that:
- Claims clearly define the boundaries of the invention
- The public can understand the scope of the patent protection
- Examiners can accurately assess patentability
If claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they may be rejected as indefinite. This emphasizes the importance of drafting claims that precisely capture the invention’s subject matter while being understandable to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.02 – Determining Whether Claim Language Is Definite (1)
The standard for indefiniteness in patent claims is based on the “reasonable certainty” test established by the Supreme Court. As stated in MPEP 2173.02:
“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, would inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
This standard requires that the claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. The definiteness requirement strikes a balance between the inherent limitations of language and the need for clear patent boundaries.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.03 – Correspondence Between Specification And Claims (2)
Antecedent basis is crucial for maintaining clarity in patent claims. The MPEP 2173.03 emphasizes its importance:
“Claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.”
Antecedent basis serves several important functions:
- Ensures clarity and definiteness of claim terms
- Provides a link between the claims and the specification
- Helps avoid indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
- Facilitates proper interpretation of claim scope
To maintain proper antecedent basis:
- Introduce elements in the claims with “a” or “an”
- Refer back to previously introduced elements with “the” or “said”
- Ensure that all claim terms have support in the specification
By maintaining proper antecedent basis, you can improve the overall quality and clarity of your patent application.
To learn more:
If the specification doesn’t provide adequate support or antecedent basis for claim terms, an examiner can take several actions. According to MPEP 2173.03:
“If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).”
The examiner’s actions may include:
- Objecting to the specification under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)
- Requiring the applicant to make appropriate amendments to the description
- Asking the applicant to amend the claims
The MPEP further states:
“Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.”
It’s important to note that any amendments to the specification must not introduce new matter, as this would violate 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.04 – Breadth Is Not Indefiniteness (1)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim:
- Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
- Lack of Support or Enablement: If the claim is not supported by the original description or lacks an enabling disclosure, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
- Prior Art: If the claim is so broad that it reads on prior art, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
The MPEP states: “Undue breadth of the claim may be addressed under different statutory provisions, depending on the reasons for concluding that the claim is too broad.“
Examiners will analyze the claim language, specification, and prior art to make these determinations. It’s important to note that breadth alone does not make a claim too broad; the issue arises when the breadth leads to indefiniteness, lack of support, or overlap with prior art.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(A) – New Terminology (1)
The use of new terminology in patent claims can make it challenging to compare the claimed invention with prior art. The MPEP acknowledges this difficulty in MPEP 2173.05(a):
“Although it is difficult to compare the claimed invention with the prior art when new terms are used that do not appear in the prior art, this does not make the new terms indefinite.”
Key points to consider:
- New terms are often necessary when describing new technologies or rapidly evolving fields.
- The difficulty in comparison doesn’t automatically make the new terms indefinite.
- Examiners must still assess whether the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the invention’s utilization and scope.
- The language should be as precise as the subject matter permits.
While new terminology can complicate prior art comparisons, it’s the examiner’s job to determine if the claims are clear and supported by the specification, regardless of the specific terms used.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(E) – Lack Of Antecedent Basis (3)
“Lack of antecedent basis” refers to a situation in patent claims where a term is used without proper introduction or reference to a previously mentioned element. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(e):
“The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to ‘said lever’ or ‘the lever,’ where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.”
This issue can lead to indefiniteness in claims, potentially rendering them unclear and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
What is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language?
The use of ‘the’ versus ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language is significant for establishing proper antecedent basis. According to MPEP 2173.05(e):
“Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”
Generally, ‘a’ or ‘an’ is used when introducing an element for the first time, while ‘the’ is used for subsequent references to that element. However, the MPEP acknowledges that the absence of explicit antecedent basis doesn’t always make a claim indefinite. The key is whether the scope of the claim remains reasonably clear to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
Yes, a claim preamble can provide antecedent basis for claim limitations, but this depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the invention. The MPEP 2173.05(e) states:
“The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
While this statement is not specifically about antecedent basis, it underscores the importance of the preamble in claim interpretation. In practice:
- If the preamble is considered to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, it can provide antecedent basis for later claim elements.
- Elements introduced in the preamble can be referred to later in the claim body using “the” or “said” if they are essential to the invention.
- However, if the preamble merely states the intended use or field of use, it may not provide proper antecedent basis for claim limitations.
For example, in a claim starting with “A method of treating diabetes comprising…”, the term “diabetes” could potentially provide antecedent basis for later references to “the disease” or “said condition” in the claim body, if diabetes is central to the invention.
It’s important to note that while preambles can provide antecedent basis, it’s often clearer and safer to introduce key elements in the body of the claim to avoid any ambiguity.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(H) – Alternative Limitations (1)
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(Q) – "Use" Claims (1)
While “use” claims are generally problematic in US patent applications, there are rare instances where they might be acceptable:
- Certain process claims: If the claim clearly implies the steps involved, it might be considered definite. However, this is risky and not recommended.
- Product-by-process claims: These are not strictly “use” claims but can describe a product in terms of the process used to make it.
The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: ‘The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.’ In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the following claim was held definite and proper: ‘The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.’“
Despite these exceptions, it’s generally safer and more effective to draft claims as method or product claims to avoid potential indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(S) – Reference To Figures Or Tables (1)
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2173.05(T) – Chemical Formula (1)
Yes, chemical compounds can be claimed by their characteristics when the structure is unknown. The MPEP 2173.05(t) provides this option:
“A compound of unknown structure may be claimed by a combination of physical and chemical characteristics.”
This approach is supported by legal precedent, such as Ex parte Brian. When structural information is unavailable or incomplete, describing a compound by its physical and chemical properties can be an effective way to claim it in a patent application. This method allows inventors to protect their discoveries even when full structural elucidation is not possible or practical.
To learn more:
MPEP 2174 – Relationship Between The Requirements Of 35 U.S.C. 112(A) And (B) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (1)
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
MPEP 2175 – Form Paragraphs For Use In Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112 (1)
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
MPEP 2175 – Form Paragraphs For Use In Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(B) Or Pre – Aia 35 U.S.C. 112 (2)
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
Form paragraphs are standardized text blocks used by patent examiners to communicate rejections in patent applications. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, specific form paragraphs are used to address various issues of indefiniteness in claims.
According to the MPEP, Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.10, 7.34.12 through 7.34.15, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
These form paragraphs cover a range of issues, from failure to claim the inventor’s invention to the use of relative terms or trademarks in claims.
To learn more:
MPEP 2183 – Making A Prima Facie Case Of Equivalence (1)
Interchangeability plays a crucial role in determining equivalence in patent examination. It is one of the factors that support a conclusion that a prior art element is an equivalent to a claimed limitation. Specifically:
MPEP 2183 states: “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.“
This means that if a person with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider the prior art element and the claimed element to be interchangeable, it supports the argument for equivalence. Examiners may cite this factor when making a prima facie case of equivalence, and it’s an important consideration for both applicants and examiners in patent prosecution.
To learn more:
MPEP 2186 – Relationship To The Doctrine Of Equivalents (1)
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
Patent Law (71)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
Product-by-process claims and method claims are distinct types of patent claims with different scopes and considerations:
- Product-by-process claims are directed to the product itself, defined by the process used to make it. The patentability is based on the product, not the process.
- Method claims are directed to the process or steps used to make a product or achieve a result.
According to MPEP 2113:
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art.”
Key differences include:
- Focus: Product-by-process claims focus on the end product; method claims focus on the process steps.
- Infringement: Product-by-process claims are infringed by identical products, regardless of how they’re made; method claims are infringed only when the specific steps are performed.
- Examination: Product-by-process claims are examined based on the product structure; method claims are examined based on the specific steps and their order.
Understanding these differences is crucial for proper claim drafting and patent strategy.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
Provisional applications can be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), but there are specific requirements. The MPEP states:
“Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the relied upon provisional application’s filing date.”
This means that for a provisional application’s filing date to be used as the effective date for prior art purposes:
- The later-filed patent must claim benefit to the provisional application
- At least one claim in the patent must be fully supported by the provisional application’s disclosure
- The support must meet the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
If these conditions are met, the provisional application’s filing date can be used as the effective date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
Antecedent basis is crucial for maintaining clarity in patent claims. The MPEP 2173.03 emphasizes its importance:
“Claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.”
Antecedent basis serves several important functions:
- Ensures clarity and definiteness of claim terms
- Provides a link between the claims and the specification
- Helps avoid indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
- Facilitates proper interpretation of claim scope
To maintain proper antecedent basis:
- Introduce elements in the claims with “a” or “an”
- Refer back to previously introduced elements with “the” or “said”
- Ensure that all claim terms have support in the specification
By maintaining proper antecedent basis, you can improve the overall quality and clarity of your patent application.
To learn more:
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
Yes, chemical compounds can be claimed by their characteristics when the structure is unknown. The MPEP 2173.05(t) provides this option:
“A compound of unknown structure may be claimed by a combination of physical and chemical characteristics.”
This approach is supported by legal precedent, such as Ex parte Brian. When structural information is unavailable or incomplete, describing a compound by its physical and chemical properties can be an effective way to claim it in a patent application. This method allows inventors to protect their discoveries even when full structural elucidation is not possible or practical.
To learn more:
According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance:
- Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.”
- Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.”
- Change: “‘Transformation’ of an article means that the ‘article’ has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article.”
The MPEP also notes: A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.
It’s important to note that purely mental processes or data manipulation are generally not considered eligible transformations: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
How does the USPTO handle situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application?
The USPTO has several mechanisms to address situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application. According to MPEP 2157:
- Derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135
- Correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48
- Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115
The MPEP states: “A situation in which an application names a person who is not the actual inventor as the inventor will be handled in a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, by a correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 to name the actual inventor, or through a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115, as appropriate.“
The appropriate action depends on the specific circumstances of the case and when the error is discovered.
To learn more:
While “use” claims are generally problematic in US patent applications, there are rare instances where they might be acceptable:
- Certain process claims: If the claim clearly implies the steps involved, it might be considered definite. However, this is risky and not recommended.
- Product-by-process claims: These are not strictly “use” claims but can describe a product in terms of the process used to make it.
The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: ‘The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.’ In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the following claim was held definite and proper: ‘The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.’“
Despite these exceptions, it’s generally safer and more effective to draft claims as method or product claims to avoid potential indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are:
- Identify and evaluate each claim limitation:
- For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed
- For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials
- Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure:
- Match each claim limitation to portions of the specification that describe it
- Do this for all claims, including those using means- (or step-) plus-function language
- Interpret claims using broadest reasonable interpretation:
- Consider the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art
- Evaluate any limiting effect of claim language
- Consider every limitation in the claim:
- Evaluate the claim as a whole, not as isolated elements
The MPEP emphasizes, The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention.
It’s important to note that examiners should not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered.
To learn more:
Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:
If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.
(MPEP 2133.03(c))
This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.
To learn more:
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
Transitional phrases in patent claims are crucial as they define the scope of a claim with respect to additional components or steps. The MPEP states, The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.
These phrases determine whether a claim is open-ended or closed to additional elements.
The interpretation of these phrases can significantly impact the breadth of patent protection and how the claim is interpreted during patent examination or litigation.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo framework, as discussed in MPEP 2106, has significant implications for software and business method patents. This framework, established by the Supreme Court decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has made it more challenging to obtain patents for certain types of software and business methods.
Key implications include:
- Increased scrutiny: Software and business method patents face heightened scrutiny under the Alice/Mayo framework, particularly regarding abstract ideas.
- Focus on technical improvements: Claims that demonstrate a technical improvement or solve a technical problem are more likely to be found eligible.
- Importance of practical application: Software and business method inventions that integrate abstract ideas into practical applications are more likely to be patent-eligible.
- Detailed claim drafting: Claims must be carefully drafted to emphasize technical elements and avoid being characterized as merely implementing abstract ideas on generic computer components.
The MPEP notes: “The courts have found software and business method claims ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in some instances, but not in others. It is important to remember that a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, or other judicial exception in a claim does not automatically render the claim as a whole ineligible for patenting.“
Applicants and practitioners must carefully consider the Alice/Mayo framework when drafting and prosecuting software and business method patent applications to improve their chances of obtaining patent protection.
To learn more:
Form paragraphs are standardized text blocks used by patent examiners to communicate rejections in patent applications. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, specific form paragraphs are used to address various issues of indefiniteness in claims.
According to the MPEP, Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.10, 7.34.12 through 7.34.15, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
These form paragraphs cover a range of issues, from failure to claim the inventor’s invention to the use of relative terms or trademarks in claims.
To learn more:
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
In patent claims, particularly for apparatus claims, the phrases “capable of” and “configured to” can have different implications:
- “Capable of” generally refers to an inherent ability or potential of the structure to perform a function, even if it’s not specifically designed for that purpose.
- “Configured to” implies that the structure is specifically designed or arranged to perform the stated function.
According to MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” This means that the capability of a prior art device to perform the claimed function is often sufficient to anticipate the claim, regardless of whether it’s explicitly stated to be “configured to” perform that function.
However, “configured to” language may be given more weight if it implies structural modifications that are not present in a prior art reference that is merely “capable of” performing the function.
To learn more:
In product-by-process claim rejections, the burden of proof is initially on the patent examiner, but it’s lower than for conventional product claims. According to MPEP 2113:
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.
Once the examiner provides a rationale showing that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to a prior art product, the burden shifts to the applicant. The applicant must then provide evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
To learn more:
What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02:
“The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically state the subject matter of the invention and the field of the invention. The agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, but it does not have to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying upon the joint research agreement is submitted.”
To constitute a valid joint research agreement, the following elements must be present:
- Written agreement
- Signed by all parties
- Specification of the subject matter of the invention
- Indication of the field of the invention
- In effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
It’s important to note that while the agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date, it doesn’t need to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying on the agreement is submitted.
To learn more:
Amendments to correct obvious errors in patent applications do not constitute new matter under certain conditions. The MPEP Section 2163.07 provides guidance:
“An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction.”
This means that if a person skilled in the relevant field would both recognize the error and know how to correct it based on the original application, fixing such an error is not considered new matter. However, it’s important to note that the error and its correction must be obvious to avoid introducing unintended changes to the application.
To learn more:
What are the Graham factors in patent obviousness analysis?
The Graham factors, established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., are four key considerations used in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. These factors are:
- The scope and content of the prior art
- The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention
- The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
- Objective evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations)
As stated in MPEP 2141: “The Graham factual inquiries … are to be considered when making a determination of obviousness.” Examiners must consider these factors when evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious in light of the prior art.
To learn more:
Interchangeability plays a crucial role in determining equivalence in patent examination. It is one of the factors that support a conclusion that a prior art element is an equivalent to a claimed limitation. Specifically:
MPEP 2183 states: “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.“
This means that if a person with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider the prior art element and the claimed element to be interchangeable, it supports the argument for equivalence. Examiners may cite this factor when making a prima facie case of equivalence, and it’s an important consideration for both applicants and examiners in patent prosecution.
To learn more:
“Lack of antecedent basis” refers to a situation in patent claims where a term is used without proper introduction or reference to a previously mentioned element. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(e):
“The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to ‘said lever’ or ‘the lever,’ where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.”
This issue can lead to indefiniteness in claims, potentially rendering them unclear and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
What is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language?
The use of ‘the’ versus ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language is significant for establishing proper antecedent basis. According to MPEP 2173.05(e):
“Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”
Generally, ‘a’ or ‘an’ is used when introducing an element for the first time, while ‘the’ is used for subsequent references to that element. However, the MPEP acknowledges that the absence of explicit antecedent basis doesn’t always make a claim indefinite. The key is whether the scope of the claim remains reasonably clear to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The use of new terminology in patent claims can make it challenging to compare the claimed invention with prior art. The MPEP acknowledges this difficulty in MPEP 2173.05(a):
“Although it is difficult to compare the claimed invention with the prior art when new terms are used that do not appear in the prior art, this does not make the new terms indefinite.”
Key points to consider:
- New terms are often necessary when describing new technologies or rapidly evolving fields.
- The difficulty in comparison doesn’t automatically make the new terms indefinite.
- Examiners must still assess whether the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the invention’s utilization and scope.
- The language should be as precise as the subject matter permits.
While new terminology can complicate prior art comparisons, it’s the examiner’s job to determine if the claims are clear and supported by the specification, regardless of the specific terms used.
To learn more:
The standard for indefiniteness in patent claims is based on the “reasonable certainty” test established by the Supreme Court. As stated in MPEP 2173.02:
“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, would inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
This standard requires that the claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. The definiteness requirement strikes a balance between the inherent limitations of language and the need for clear patent boundaries.
To learn more:
The standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled is based on the ability of a skilled person to identify operative and inoperative embodiments without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2164.08(b):
“The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.”
This standard, derived from the Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. case, emphasizes that the key factor is the level of effort required to identify operative embodiments, not merely the presence of inoperative ones.
To learn more:
The USPTO uses a two-step process to determine if a claim recites an abstract idea:
- Evaluate the claim language: Examiners analyze the claim to identify any concepts that may be abstract ideas.
- Compare to established abstract idea categories: The identified concepts are compared to the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas and previous court decisions.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a): “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”
To learn more:
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
While prophetic examples can be valuable in patent applications, they also come with certain risks that applicants should be aware of:
- Potential for Inequitable Conduct: If prophetic examples are not clearly distinguished from working examples, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead the USPTO.
- Enablement Challenges: Overly speculative or implausible prophetic examples may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement.
- Prior Art Issues: Prophetic examples may inadvertently disclose ideas that could later be used as prior art against the applicant or others.
- Credibility Concerns: Excessive use of prophetic examples without supporting data may raise doubts about the invention’s viability.
The MPEP 2164.02 cautions: “Care should be taken to ensure that prophetic examples are not presented in such a way as to mislead the reader into concluding that they are actual examples.” It’s crucial to clearly differentiate prophetic examples and ensure they are reasonable based on the known scientific principles and the state of the art.
To learn more:
The MPEP provides several examples of concepts and products that courts have identified as laws of nature or natural phenomena, which are not patentable. Some of these include:
- Isolated DNA
- Cloned farm animals
- Correlations between DNA variations and allele presence
- Metabolic correlations in the body
- Mathematical formulas (e.g., E=mc²)
- Electromagnetic signals
- Qualities of bacteria
- Single-stranded DNA fragments (primers)
- Chemical principles
- Cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood
The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) states: “[A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter under Section 101. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc²; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”
These examples illustrate that naturally occurring phenomena and fundamental scientific principles are generally not eligible for patent protection.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim:
- Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
- Lack of Support or Enablement: If the claim is not supported by the original description or lacks an enabling disclosure, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
- Prior Art: If the claim is so broad that it reads on prior art, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
The MPEP states: “Undue breadth of the claim may be addressed under different statutory provisions, depending on the reasons for concluding that the claim is too broad.“
Examiners will analyze the claim language, specification, and prior art to make these determinations. It’s important to note that breadth alone does not make a claim too broad; the issue arises when the breadth leads to indefiniteness, lack of support, or overlap with prior art.
To learn more:
Before conducting an enablement analysis, it is crucial for the examiner to construe the claims. The MPEP 2164.04 emphasizes this point:
“Before any analysis of enablement can occur, it is necessary for the examiner to construe the claims.“
For terms that are not well-known in the art or could have multiple meanings, the examiner must:
- Select the definition they intend to use when examining the application
- Base this definition on their understanding of what the applicant intends it to mean
- Explicitly set forth the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim when writing an Office action
This step is crucial because the enablement requirement is directly related to the scope of the claims, and a proper understanding of the claim terms is necessary to assess whether the disclosure enables the full scope of the claimed invention.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
Yes, patent examiners can and often do suggest amendments to claims to address written description issues. This practice is encouraged as part of the examination process to help applicants overcome rejections and move their applications forward.
The MPEP 2163.04 states:
“When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description.”
However, examiners must be careful not to suggest amendments that would introduce new matter into the application. Any suggested amendments must be fully supported by the original disclosure to comply with the written description requirement and avoid new matter issues.
This guidance encourages a collaborative approach between examiners and applicants to resolve written description issues while maintaining the integrity of the patent application.
To learn more:
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
The effect of the preamble on claim interpretation is determined on a case-by-case basis. As stated in MPEP 2111.02, “The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
Generally, the preamble limits the claim if:
- It recites essential structure or steps
- It’s necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
- It’s used to define the scope of the claimed invention
As the Federal Circuit stated in Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”
To learn more:
If the specification doesn’t provide adequate support or antecedent basis for claim terms, an examiner can take several actions. According to MPEP 2173.03:
“If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).”
The examiner’s actions may include:
- Objecting to the specification under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)
- Requiring the applicant to make appropriate amendments to the description
- Asking the applicant to amend the claims
The MPEP further states:
“Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.”
It’s important to note that any amendments to the specification must not introduce new matter, as this would violate 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
To learn more:
New or amended claims can face written description issues if they introduce elements not supported by the original disclosure. The MPEP 2163.03 states:
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Key issues that can arise include:
- Adding new limitations not described in the original specification
- Broadening claim scope beyond what was originally disclosed
- Introducing new combinations of elements not originally presented
To avoid these issues, applicants should ensure that any new or amended claims are fully supported by the original disclosure, either explicitly or implicitly. If support is not clear, applicants may need to provide explanations or point to specific parts of the original disclosure that provide the necessary support.
To learn more:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The “ready for patenting” requirement is the second prong of the Pfaff test for determining if an invention was “on sale” for the purposes of the on-sale bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(b), an invention is “ready for patenting” when either:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.
This requirement ensures that the invention was sufficiently developed at the time of the offer for sale. It prevents inventors from claiming the on-sale bar doesn’t apply because the invention wasn’t complete, even if they were commercially exploiting the concept.
To learn more:
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach:
“The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that ‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”
The TSM test applies in obviousness determinations as follows:
- Examiners must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references.
- This reason can come from the prior art itself, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved.
- The motivation does not need to be explicitly stated in the references but can be implied from the prior art as a whole.
- While TSM is not the only way to establish obviousness, it provides a structured approach to support the rationale for combining references.
Examiners should use the TSM test as one of several tools to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for obviousness rejections.
To learn more:
What role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention?
35 U.S.C. 112(b) plays a crucial role in determining the subject matter of an invention by requiring clarity and precision in patent claims. According to MPEP 2172:
“35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that the specification conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
This statute ensures that:
- Claims clearly define the boundaries of the invention
- The public can understand the scope of the patent protection
- Examiners can accurately assess patentability
If claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they may be rejected as indefinite. This emphasizes the importance of drafting claims that precisely capture the invention’s subject matter while being understandable to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
A continuation-in-part (CIP) application with an additional inventor can still be considered “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP provides an example in MPEP 2136.04:
“Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was ‘by another’ and thus could be used in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) / 103 rejection of the application.).”
This means that even if a CIP application shares inventors with its parent patent, the addition of a new inventor makes the inventive entities different, allowing the parent patent to be used as prior art against the CIP under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
Yes, a claim preamble can provide antecedent basis for claim limitations, but this depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the invention. The MPEP 2173.05(e) states:
“The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
While this statement is not specifically about antecedent basis, it underscores the importance of the preamble in claim interpretation. In practice:
- If the preamble is considered to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, it can provide antecedent basis for later claim elements.
- Elements introduced in the preamble can be referred to later in the claim body using “the” or “said” if they are essential to the invention.
- However, if the preamble merely states the intended use or field of use, it may not provide proper antecedent basis for claim limitations.
For example, in a claim starting with “A method of treating diabetes comprising…”, the term “diabetes” could potentially provide antecedent basis for later references to “the disease” or “said condition” in the claim body, if diabetes is central to the invention.
It’s important to note that while preambles can provide antecedent basis, it’s often clearer and safer to introduce key elements in the body of the claim to avoid any ambiguity.
To learn more:
To determine whether your patent application is subject to AIA (America Invents Act) or pre-AIA laws, you need to consider the effective filing date of your claimed invention. According to MPEP 2159:
“Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention for purposes of applying AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions is critical.”
To determine which laws apply:
- Identify the effective filing date of your claimed invention.
- If the effective filing date is on or after March 16, 2013, your application is subject to AIA laws.
- If the effective filing date is before March 16, 2013, your application is subject to pre-AIA laws.
- For applications with multiple claims, if any claim has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the entire application is subject to AIA laws.
Consult with a patent attorney or agent for a precise determination, as the effective filing date can be affected by factors such as priority claims, continuation applications, and the specific content of the application.
To learn more:
Transitional phrases play a crucial role in patent claim construction by defining the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2111.03, transitional phrases “define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.”
The significance of transitional phrases includes:
- Determining claim scope: They indicate whether the claim is open-ended or closed, affecting what elements can be included in the claimed invention.
- Infringement analysis: The choice of transitional phrase impacts how potential infringement is evaluated.
- Patentability assessment: Examiners use transitional phrases to understand the boundaries of the claimed invention when comparing it to prior art.
For example, the phrase “comprising” in “A composition comprising X, Y, and Z” allows for additional, unrecited elements, while “consisting of” in “A mixture consisting of A and B” excludes any elements not specified.
Understanding and correctly using transitional phrases is essential for patent drafters, examiners, and litigators to accurately define and interpret the scope of patent claims.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (71)
A result-effective variable is a parameter that is recognized in the prior art as affecting a particular result or outcome. The concept is important in patent law, particularly in obviousness determinations. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.”
The idea behind the result-effective variable analysis is that a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to optimize a parameter if there is evidence in the prior art that the parameter affects the result. However, it’s important to note that after the KSR decision:
“[T]he presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed variable was not recognized as result-effective in the prior art, but this is considered a narrow exception.
To learn more:
Mathematical concepts are one of the three main categories of abstract ideas identified in the MPEP. The MPEP states:
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.“
When evaluating whether a claim recites a mathematical concept, examiners consider the following:
- Does the claim recite a mathematical relationship, formula, equation, or calculation?
- Is the mathematical concept merely based on or involves a mathematical concept?
The MPEP clarifies: “A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.“
Examples of mathematical concepts considered abstract ideas include:
- A formula for computing an alarm limit (Parker v. Flook)
- A method of hedging risk (Bilski v. Kappos)
- An algorithm for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form (Gottschalk v. Benson)
It’s important to note that a claim is not automatically ineligible just because it involves a mathematical concept. The claim as a whole must be evaluated to determine if it integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application or provides an inventive concept.
To learn more:
The MPEP discusses the use of “optionally” in patent claims in MPEP 2173.05(h). While not explicitly stating a stance, the MPEP provides guidance on how such terms are interpreted:
“A claim which recites “at least one member” of a group is a proper claim and should be treated as a claim reciting in the alternative. A claim which uses the phrase “and/or” should be treated as an alternative expression and should be rejected using the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 and should be treated as a conjunctive (“and”) or alternative (“or”) expression in the alternative.”
By extension, the use of “optionally” in claims is generally acceptable as it clearly indicates that certain elements or steps are not required. However, care should be taken to ensure that the use of “optionally” does not introduce indefiniteness or ambiguity into the claim. The claim should clearly define the scope both with and without the optional elements.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 provides guidance on distinguishing apparatus claims from method claims, particularly when functional language is involved. The manual states:
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.”
This means that for apparatus claims, the focus should be on the structural elements rather than how the apparatus functions. In contrast, method claims are defined by the steps or actions performed. The MPEP further clarifies:
“The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”
This highlights that merely describing a new way to use an existing apparatus doesn’t make it patentable. To be patentable, an apparatus claim must have structural differences from the prior art. If an applicant wants to protect a specific way of using an apparatus, they should consider filing method claims in addition to apparatus claims.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo test, also known as the Mayo test, is a two-part framework established by the Supreme Court for determining patent subject matter eligibility. According to the MPEP:
“The first part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). … If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
This test helps examiners and courts evaluate whether a claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception and, if so, whether it includes additional elements that transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.
To learn more:
The burden of proof for inherency in patent rejections initially lies with the examiner. The MPEP states: “In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”
(MPEP 2112)
However, once the examiner establishes a prima facie case of inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant. As stated in the MPEP: “[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product.”
The applicant may rebut this by providing objective evidence that the prior art does not necessarily possess the claimed characteristics. The standard of proof is similar to that required for product-by-process claims, as discussed in MPEP 2113.
To learn more:
Product-by-process claims and method claims are distinct types of patent claims with different scopes and considerations:
- Product-by-process claims are directed to the product itself, defined by the process used to make it. The patentability is based on the product, not the process.
- Method claims are directed to the process or steps used to make a product or achieve a result.
According to MPEP 2113:
“The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art.”
Key differences include:
- Focus: Product-by-process claims focus on the end product; method claims focus on the process steps.
- Infringement: Product-by-process claims are infringed by identical products, regardless of how they’re made; method claims are infringed only when the specific steps are performed.
- Examination: Product-by-process claims are examined based on the product structure; method claims are examined based on the specific steps and their order.
Understanding these differences is crucial for proper claim drafting and patent strategy.
To learn more:
What is the significance of drawings in proving conception for a patent?
Drawings play a crucial role in proving conception for a patent. The MPEP 2138.04 highlights their importance:
“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention” and “is complete only when the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.“
In this context, drawings are significant because:
- They provide a visual representation of the inventor’s mental picture of the invention.
- Detailed drawings can demonstrate that the inventor had a complete conception of all aspects of the invention.
- Drawings can help prove that the invention was “ready for patenting” at the time of conception.
- They can serve as corroborating evidence to support the inventor’s testimony about conception.
The MPEP also notes: “The inventor’s consideration of all the structural details is not required,” suggesting that while drawings are important, they don’t need to include every minute detail to prove conception. However, the more comprehensive and clear the drawings are, the stronger the evidence of conception.
To learn more:
Improvements to computer functionality can be a key factor in establishing patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(a):
“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification.”
The MPEP cites several examples of improvements to computer functionality that courts have found to be patent-eligible:
- A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage (DDR Holdings)
- A specific improvement to the way computers operate (Enfish)
- A particular method of incorporating virus screening into the Internet (Symantec Corp)
However, the MPEP also notes that “the mere fact that a computer may be able to perform the claimed steps more efficiently does not necessarily render an abstract idea less abstract.”
The key is that the improvement must be to the functioning of a computer or other technology, not just an improvement to an abstract idea implemented on a computer.
To learn more:
The enablement requirement in patent law serves to ensure that the invention is sufficiently described to allow the public to make and use it. As explained in MPEP 2165.02:
“The enablement requirement looks to placing the subject matter of the claims generally in the possession of the public.”
This means that the patent application must provide enough information for a person skilled in the relevant field to understand and reproduce the invention without undue experimentation. The enablement requirement is crucial for fulfilling the patent system’s goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts by ensuring that inventions are fully disclosed in exchange for patent protection.
To learn more:
Subject matter that is disclosed in a parent application but not included in a child continuation-in-part (CIP) cannot be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) against the CIP. The MPEP cites a specific case law example:
“In re Lund, 376 F.2d 982, 153 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1967) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection over an issued U.S. patent which was a continuation-in-part (CIP). The parent application of the U.S. patent reference contained an example II which was not carried over to the CIP. The court held that the subject matter embodied in the canceled example II could not be relied on as of either parent or child filing date. Thus, the use of example II subject matter to reject the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) was improper.).”
This means that only the content actually present in the CIP can be used as prior art under 102(e), not additional content from the parent application that wasn’t carried over.
To learn more:
MPEP 2114 addresses recitations of the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed. According to the manual:
“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
This means that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The MPEP further states:
“A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)”
This guidance emphasizes that the focus should be on the structural limitations of the apparatus claim, rather than its intended use.
To learn more:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) determines the effective filing date for subject matter in foreign priority applications as follows:
- The subject matter must be disclosed in the foreign priority application in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (except for the best mode requirement).
- The foreign priority application must be entitled to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) or (b).
- If these conditions are met, the effective filing date is the filing date of the foreign priority application.
As stated in MPEP 2154.01(b): “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) provides that a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application (‘U.S. patent document’) is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or published application as of either its actual filing date (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(1)), or the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought (AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d)(2)).”
To learn more:
The “particular machine” consideration plays a significant role in the overall patent eligibility analysis, particularly in the context of the Alice/Mayo test. Here’s how it fits into the broader analysis:
- It’s part of Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test.
- In Step 2A Prong Two, it can help determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
- In Step 2B, it can contribute to the “significantly more” analysis.
- A particular machine can potentially transform an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states: “The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus, i.e., the degree to which the machine in the claim can be specifically identified (not any and all machines) is a factor in considering whether it is a ‘particular machine.’”
The MPEP further clarifies: “Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity or a field-of-use, i.e., the extent to which (or how) the machine or apparatus imposes meaningful limits on the claim. Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
To learn more:
The phrase “consisting essentially of” occupies a middle ground between the open-ended “comprising” and the closed “consisting of” in patent claims. According to MPEP 2111.03:
“The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.”
Key differences:
- “Comprising”: Open-ended, allows for additional, unrecited elements.
- “Consisting of”: Closed, excludes any element not specified in the claim.
- “Consisting essentially of”: Partially open, allows only those additional elements that do not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
For example, “A cleaning composition consisting essentially of ingredients X, Y, and Z” would allow for minor additives that don’t significantly change the cleaning properties, but would exclude major components that alter its fundamental nature.
When using or interpreting “consisting essentially of,” it’s important to refer to the specification to understand what constitutes a material change to the invention’s basic and novel characteristics.
To learn more:
Provisional applications can be used as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), but there are specific requirements. The MPEP states:
“Where a U.S. patent claims benefit to a provisional application, at least one claim of the patent must be supported by the disclosure of the relied upon provisional application in compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, in order for the patent to be usable as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as of the relied upon provisional application’s filing date.”
This means that for a provisional application’s filing date to be used as the effective date for prior art purposes:
- The later-filed patent must claim benefit to the provisional application
- At least one claim in the patent must be fully supported by the provisional application’s disclosure
- The support must meet the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
If these conditions are met, the provisional application’s filing date can be used as the effective date for prior art purposes under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
Antecedent basis is crucial for maintaining clarity in patent claims. The MPEP 2173.03 emphasizes its importance:
“Claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.”
Antecedent basis serves several important functions:
- Ensures clarity and definiteness of claim terms
- Provides a link between the claims and the specification
- Helps avoid indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
- Facilitates proper interpretation of claim scope
To maintain proper antecedent basis:
- Introduce elements in the claims with “a” or “an”
- Refer back to previously introduced elements with “the” or “said”
- Ensure that all claim terms have support in the specification
By maintaining proper antecedent basis, you can improve the overall quality and clarity of your patent application.
To learn more:
The interpretation of “wherein” and “whereby” clauses in patent claims depends on their specific context and effect on the claim. According to MPEP 2111.04:
“The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case.”
For “wherein” clauses, they can be limiting if they give “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps” as noted in Griffin v. Bertina.
For “whereby” clauses, the Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. case provides guidance:
- If a “whereby” clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored.
- However, in a method claim, a “whereby” clause that simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited is not given weight.
Patent attorneys and examiners should carefully analyze these clauses to determine if they add limitations to the claim or merely state the intended result of other claim elements.
To learn more:
Yes, chemical compounds can be claimed by their characteristics when the structure is unknown. The MPEP 2173.05(t) provides this option:
“A compound of unknown structure may be claimed by a combination of physical and chemical characteristics.”
This approach is supported by legal precedent, such as Ex parte Brian. When structural information is unavailable or incomplete, describing a compound by its physical and chemical properties can be an effective way to claim it in a patent application. This method allows inventors to protect their discoveries even when full structural elucidation is not possible or practical.
To learn more:
According to MPEP 2106.05(c), a transformation under the particular transformation consideration involves changing an “article” to a different state or thing. The MPEP provides the following guidance:
- Article: “An ‘article’ includes a physical object or substance.”
- Particularity: “The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified.”
- Change: “‘Transformation’ of an article means that the ‘article’ has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article.”
The MPEP also notes: A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed.
It’s important to note that purely mental processes or data manipulation are generally not considered eligible transformations: Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation.
To learn more:
Yes, an inventor’s own work can be used as prior art against their patent application under certain circumstances. According to MPEP 2133.02:
“Any invention described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the date of a patent application is prior art under Section 102(b), even if the printed publication was authored by the patent applicant.”
This means that if an inventor publicly discloses their invention (through a publication, public use, or sale) more than one year before filing a patent application, that disclosure can be used as prior art against their own application. This creates a statutory bar to patentability under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
To learn more:
How does the USPTO handle situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application?
The USPTO has several mechanisms to address situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application. According to MPEP 2157:
- Derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135
- Correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48
- Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115
The MPEP states: “A situation in which an application names a person who is not the actual inventor as the inventor will be handled in a derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135, by a correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 to name the actual inventor, or through a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115, as appropriate.“
The appropriate action depends on the specific circumstances of the case and when the error is discovered.
To learn more:
While “use” claims are generally problematic in US patent applications, there are rare instances where they might be acceptable:
- Certain process claims: If the claim clearly implies the steps involved, it might be considered definite. However, this is risky and not recommended.
- Product-by-process claims: These are not strictly “use” claims but can describe a product in terms of the process used to make it.
The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) held the following claim to be an improper definition of a process: ‘The use of a high carbon austenitic iron alloy having a proportion of free carbon as a vehicle brake part subject to stress by sliding friction.’ In Clinical Products Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966), the following claim was held definite and proper: ‘The use of a sustained release therapeutic agent in the body of ephedrine absorbed upon polystyrene sulfonic acid.’“
Despite these exceptions, it’s generally safer and more effective to draft claims as method or product claims to avoid potential indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
Criticality plays a crucial role in rebutting obviousness rejections, particularly in cases involving ranges or amounts. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’”
To establish criticality, the applicant must demonstrate that the claimed range produces unexpected results or has some other critical property that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected. This often involves showing a marked improvement in some property or unexpected advantage within the claimed range.
It’s important to note that the burden is on the applicant to establish criticality: “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.”
To learn more:
The “obvious to try” rationale is a valid basis for an obviousness rejection in patent law, as clarified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. According to MPEP 2144.05:
“The Supreme Court has clarified that an ‘obvious to try’ line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. … [W]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
This rationale is particularly relevant in cases involving optimization of ranges or amounts. However, it’s important to note that the “obvious to try” approach requires a reasonable expectation of success and a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
To learn more:
Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are:
- Identify and evaluate each claim limitation:
- For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed
- For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials
- Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure:
- Match each claim limitation to portions of the specification that describe it
- Do this for all claims, including those using means- (or step-) plus-function language
- Interpret claims using broadest reasonable interpretation:
- Consider the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art
- Evaluate any limiting effect of claim language
- Consider every limitation in the claim:
- Evaluate the claim as a whole, not as isolated elements
The MPEP emphasizes, The goal of claim analysis is to identify the boundaries of the protection sought by the applicant and to understand how the claims relate to and define what the applicant has indicated is the invention.
It’s important to note that examiners should not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole must be considered.
To learn more:
Yes, the sale of a product inherently possessing claimed characteristics can trigger the on-sale bar, even if the parties involved in the transaction are unaware of these characteristics. The MPEP clearly states:
If a product that is offered for sale inherently possesses each of the limitations of the claims, then the invention is on sale, whether or not the parties to the transaction recognize that the product possesses the claimed characteristics.
(MPEP 2133.03(c))
This principle was established in the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., where a patent for a specific crystalline form of a pharmaceutical compound was invalidated due to prior sales, even though the parties involved were unaware of the specific crystalline form at the time of the sales.
To learn more:
Yes, a non-profit sale can trigger the on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b). The MPEP clearly states:
A “sale” need not be for profit to bar a patent. If the sale was for the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is “on sale” within the meaning of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
(MPEP 2133.03(b))
This interpretation is supported by case law, specifically In re Dybel. The key factor is not whether a profit was realized, but whether the sale was for commercial exploitation of the invention. Even if no profit is made, if the sale was intended to commercially exploit the invention, it can still trigger the on-sale bar.
To learn more:
The written description requirement and enablement are distinct but related concepts in patent law. According to MPEP 2163.03:
“While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim.”
Key differences include:
- Written Description: Focuses on whether the specification demonstrates that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
- Enablement: Concerns whether the specification teaches a person skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
A specification might enable the invention but still fail to provide adequate written description, or vice versa. For example, a specification might describe a general concept (meeting the written description requirement) but not provide enough detail for someone to make and use it (failing enablement). Conversely, a specification might provide a detailed method for making something (meeting enablement) but not show that the inventor possessed the full scope of the claimed invention (failing written description).
To learn more:
Transitional phrases in patent claims are crucial as they define the scope of a claim with respect to additional components or steps. The MPEP states, The transitional phrases “comprising”, “consisting essentially of” and “consisting of” define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.
These phrases determine whether a claim is open-ended or closed to additional elements.
The interpretation of these phrases can significantly impact the breadth of patent protection and how the claim is interpreted during patent examination or litigation.
To learn more:
The Alice/Mayo framework, as discussed in MPEP 2106, has significant implications for software and business method patents. This framework, established by the Supreme Court decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., has made it more challenging to obtain patents for certain types of software and business methods.
Key implications include:
- Increased scrutiny: Software and business method patents face heightened scrutiny under the Alice/Mayo framework, particularly regarding abstract ideas.
- Focus on technical improvements: Claims that demonstrate a technical improvement or solve a technical problem are more likely to be found eligible.
- Importance of practical application: Software and business method inventions that integrate abstract ideas into practical applications are more likely to be patent-eligible.
- Detailed claim drafting: Claims must be carefully drafted to emphasize technical elements and avoid being characterized as merely implementing abstract ideas on generic computer components.
The MPEP notes: “The courts have found software and business method claims ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in some instances, but not in others. It is important to remember that a mathematical concept, an abstract idea, or other judicial exception in a claim does not automatically render the claim as a whole ineligible for patenting.“
Applicants and practitioners must carefully consider the Alice/Mayo framework when drafting and prosecuting software and business method patent applications to improve their chances of obtaining patent protection.
To learn more:
Form paragraphs are standardized text blocks used by patent examiners to communicate rejections in patent applications. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, specific form paragraphs are used to address various issues of indefiniteness in claims.
According to the MPEP, Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.10, 7.34.12 through 7.34.15, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
These form paragraphs cover a range of issues, from failure to claim the inventor’s invention to the use of relative terms or trademarks in claims.
To learn more:
No, a claim cannot be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) solely because the description is not commensurate with the claim scope. The MPEP 2174 states: “If a description or the enabling disclosure of a specification is not commensurate in scope with the subject matter encompassed by a claim, that fact alone does not render the claim imprecise or indefinite or otherwise not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; rather, the claim is based on an insufficient disclosure (35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph) and should be rejected on that ground.” This means that such issues are related to the written description or enablement requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), not the definiteness requirement under 112(b).
To learn more:
In patent claims, particularly for apparatus claims, the phrases “capable of” and “configured to” can have different implications:
- “Capable of” generally refers to an inherent ability or potential of the structure to perform a function, even if it’s not specifically designed for that purpose.
- “Configured to” implies that the structure is specifically designed or arranged to perform the stated function.
According to MPEP 2114, “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” This means that the capability of a prior art device to perform the claimed function is often sufficient to anticipate the claim, regardless of whether it’s explicitly stated to be “configured to” perform that function.
However, “configured to” language may be given more weight if it implies structural modifications that are not present in a prior art reference that is merely “capable of” performing the function.
To learn more:
In product-by-process claim rejections, the burden of proof is initially on the patent examiner, but it’s lower than for conventional product claims. According to MPEP 2113:
“The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion.
Once the examiner provides a rationale showing that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to a prior art product, the burden shifts to the applicant. The applicant must then provide evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
To learn more:
What constitutes a valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
A valid joint research agreement under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) must meet specific criteria to qualify for the exception. According to MPEP 2146.02:
“The joint research agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties to the agreement. The agreement should specifically state the subject matter of the invention and the field of the invention. The agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, but it does not have to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying upon the joint research agreement is submitted.”
To constitute a valid joint research agreement, the following elements must be present:
- Written agreement
- Signed by all parties
- Specification of the subject matter of the invention
- Indication of the field of the invention
- In effect as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
It’s important to note that while the agreement must be in effect as of the effective filing date, it doesn’t need to be in writing until the date the amendment or reply relying on the agreement is submitted.
To learn more:
Amendments to correct obvious errors in patent applications do not constitute new matter under certain conditions. The MPEP Section 2163.07 provides guidance:
“An amendment to correct an obvious error does not constitute new matter where one skilled in the art would not only recognize the existence of error in the specification, but also the appropriate correction.”
This means that if a person skilled in the relevant field would both recognize the error and know how to correct it based on the original application, fixing such an error is not considered new matter. However, it’s important to note that the error and its correction must be obvious to avoid introducing unintended changes to the application.
To learn more:
What are the Graham factors in patent obviousness analysis?
The Graham factors, established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., are four key considerations used in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. These factors are:
- The scope and content of the prior art
- The differences between the prior art and the claimed invention
- The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
- Objective evidence of nonobviousness (secondary considerations)
As stated in MPEP 2141: “The Graham factual inquiries … are to be considered when making a determination of obviousness.” Examiners must consider these factors when evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious in light of the prior art.
To learn more:
Interchangeability plays a crucial role in determining equivalence in patent examination. It is one of the factors that support a conclusion that a prior art element is an equivalent to a claimed limitation. Specifically:
MPEP 2183 states: “A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification.“
This means that if a person with ordinary skill in the relevant field would consider the prior art element and the claimed element to be interchangeable, it supports the argument for equivalence. Examiners may cite this factor when making a prima facie case of equivalence, and it’s an important consideration for both applicants and examiners in patent prosecution.
To learn more:
“Lack of antecedent basis” refers to a situation in patent claims where a term is used without proper introduction or reference to a previously mentioned element. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(e):
“The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to ‘said lever’ or ‘the lever,’ where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.”
This issue can lead to indefiniteness in claims, potentially rendering them unclear and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
To learn more:
The function-way-result test is a key aspect of determining equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. MPEP 2186 references this test as follows:
“[A]n analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute plays a role substantially different from the claimed element.”
This test evaluates whether a substitute element in an accused product performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result as the claimed element in the patented invention.
To learn more:
What is the significance of the ‘the’ vs. ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language?
The use of ‘the’ versus ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent claim language is significant for establishing proper antecedent basis. According to MPEP 2173.05(e):
“Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite.”
Generally, ‘a’ or ‘an’ is used when introducing an element for the first time, while ‘the’ is used for subsequent references to that element. However, the MPEP acknowledges that the absence of explicit antecedent basis doesn’t always make a claim indefinite. The key is whether the scope of the claim remains reasonably clear to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
According to the MPEP, reduction to practice is generally not required to be considered an inventor. The focus is on conception of the invention. The MPEP states:
“Difficulties arise in separating members of a team effort, where each member of the team has contributed something, into those members that actually contributed to the conception of the invention, such as the physical structure or operative steps, from those members that merely acted under the direction and supervision of the conceivers.” MPEP 2109
The MPEP further clarifies:
“[T]here is no requirement that the inventor be the one to reduce the invention to practice so long as the reduction to practice was done on his behalf.” In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)
This means that an individual who conceives the invention but doesn’t physically create or test it can still be considered an inventor, as long as others carry out those steps under their direction.
To learn more:
When rejecting a claim for lack of written description, a patent examiner must fulfill specific requirements. According to MPEP 2163.04, the examiner must:
- Identify the claim limitation(s) at issue
- Establish a prima facie case by providing reasons why a person skilled in the art would not have recognized that the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed
The MPEP further states:
“A simple statement such as ‘Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.”
This guidance helps ensure that rejections are specific and well-supported, allowing applicants to respond effectively.
To learn more:
The use of new terminology in patent claims can make it challenging to compare the claimed invention with prior art. The MPEP acknowledges this difficulty in MPEP 2173.05(a):
“Although it is difficult to compare the claimed invention with the prior art when new terms are used that do not appear in the prior art, this does not make the new terms indefinite.”
Key points to consider:
- New terms are often necessary when describing new technologies or rapidly evolving fields.
- The difficulty in comparison doesn’t automatically make the new terms indefinite.
- Examiners must still assess whether the claims, read in light of the specification, reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the invention’s utilization and scope.
- The language should be as precise as the subject matter permits.
While new terminology can complicate prior art comparisons, it’s the examiner’s job to determine if the claims are clear and supported by the specification, regardless of the specific terms used.
To learn more:
The standard for indefiniteness in patent claims is based on the “reasonable certainty” test established by the Supreme Court. As stated in MPEP 2173.02:
“A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is whether the claim, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, would inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
This standard requires that the claims, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement of the patent. The definiteness requirement strikes a balance between the inherent limitations of language and the need for clear patent boundaries.
To learn more:
The standard for determining if a claim with inoperative embodiments is still enabled is based on the ability of a skilled person to identify operative and inoperative embodiments without undue experimentation. According to MPEP 2164.08(b):
“The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.”
This standard, derived from the Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. case, emphasizes that the key factor is the level of effort required to identify operative embodiments, not merely the presence of inoperative ones.
To learn more:
The USPTO uses a two-step process to determine if a claim recites an abstract idea:
- Evaluate the claim language: Examiners analyze the claim to identify any concepts that may be abstract ideas.
- Compare to established abstract idea categories: The identified concepts are compared to the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas and previous court decisions.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a): “To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea in Prong One, examiners are now to: (a) Identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination (individually or in combination) that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and (b) determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.”
To learn more:
The use of a computer in a claim does not automatically disqualify it from being considered a mental process. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate such claims:
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.”
When evaluating computer-implemented claims, examiners consider whether the claim:
- Recites a mental process performed on a generic computer
- Recites a mental process performed in a computer environment
- Uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process
The MPEP provides examples for each scenario, such as:
- Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying results (Electric Power Group v. Alstom)
- Claiming a process of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description (Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics)
The key is to determine whether the claim is directed to an improvement in computer functionality or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform a process that could be done mentally. The mere recitation of computer implementation is not enough to transform a mental process into a patent-eligible invention.
To learn more:
While prophetic examples can be valuable in patent applications, they also come with certain risks that applicants should be aware of:
- Potential for Inequitable Conduct: If prophetic examples are not clearly distinguished from working examples, it could be seen as an attempt to mislead the USPTO.
- Enablement Challenges: Overly speculative or implausible prophetic examples may fail to satisfy the enablement requirement.
- Prior Art Issues: Prophetic examples may inadvertently disclose ideas that could later be used as prior art against the applicant or others.
- Credibility Concerns: Excessive use of prophetic examples without supporting data may raise doubts about the invention’s viability.
The MPEP 2164.02 cautions: “Care should be taken to ensure that prophetic examples are not presented in such a way as to mislead the reader into concluding that they are actual examples.” It’s crucial to clearly differentiate prophetic examples and ensure they are reasonable based on the known scientific principles and the state of the art.
To learn more:
The MPEP provides several examples of concepts and products that courts have identified as laws of nature or natural phenomena, which are not patentable. Some of these include:
- Isolated DNA
- Cloned farm animals
- Correlations between DNA variations and allele presence
- Metabolic correlations in the body
- Mathematical formulas (e.g., E=mc²)
- Electromagnetic signals
- Qualities of bacteria
- Single-stranded DNA fragments (primers)
- Chemical principles
- Cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood
The MPEP Section 2106.04(b) states: “[A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter under Section 101. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc²; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”
These examples illustrate that naturally occurring phenomena and fundamental scientific principles are generally not eligible for patent protection.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim:
- Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
- Lack of Support or Enablement: If the claim is not supported by the original description or lacks an enabling disclosure, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
- Prior Art: If the claim is so broad that it reads on prior art, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
The MPEP states: “Undue breadth of the claim may be addressed under different statutory provisions, depending on the reasons for concluding that the claim is too broad.“
Examiners will analyze the claim language, specification, and prior art to make these determinations. It’s important to note that breadth alone does not make a claim too broad; the issue arises when the breadth leads to indefiniteness, lack of support, or overlap with prior art.
To learn more:
Before conducting an enablement analysis, it is crucial for the examiner to construe the claims. The MPEP 2164.04 emphasizes this point:
“Before any analysis of enablement can occur, it is necessary for the examiner to construe the claims.“
For terms that are not well-known in the art or could have multiple meanings, the examiner must:
- Select the definition they intend to use when examining the application
- Base this definition on their understanding of what the applicant intends it to mean
- Explicitly set forth the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim when writing an Office action
This step is crucial because the enablement requirement is directly related to the scope of the claims, and a proper understanding of the claim terms is necessary to assess whether the disclosure enables the full scope of the claimed invention.
To learn more:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally discourages claims that refer to figures or tables. According to MPEP 2173.05(s):
“Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table ‘is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim.’”
The USPTO’s stance is based on the principle that claims should be self-contained and clearly define the invention without relying on external references. This approach ensures clarity and avoids potential ambiguity in interpreting the scope of the claims.
To learn more:
35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) provides three important exceptions to what would otherwise be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The MPEP outlines these exceptions:
- 102(b)(2)(A): “limits the use of an inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor’s own work is disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(B): “excepts as prior art subject matter that was effectively filed by another after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.”
- 102(b)(2)(C): “excepts subject matter disclosed in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application from constituting prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) if the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, ‘were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.’”
These exceptions provide important protections for inventors and applicants in various scenarios involving disclosures and ownership of inventions.
To learn more:
Yes, patent examiners can and often do suggest amendments to claims to address written description issues. This practice is encouraged as part of the examination process to help applicants overcome rejections and move their applications forward.
The MPEP 2163.04 states:
“When appropriate, suggest amendments to the claims which can be supported by the application’s written description, being mindful of the prohibition against the addition of new matter in the claims or description.”
However, examiners must be careful not to suggest amendments that would introduce new matter into the application. Any suggested amendments must be fully supported by the original disclosure to comply with the written description requirement and avoid new matter issues.
This guidance encourages a collaborative approach between examiners and applicants to resolve written description issues while maintaining the integrity of the patent application.
To learn more:
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a):
“The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and requires an analysis of the similarities and differences between the purported analogous art and the claimed invention.’”
To determine the field of endeavor:
- Examiners review the specification, including the background section and the detailed description of the invention.
- They consider the problem the inventor was trying to solve.
- The claims are also analyzed to understand the scope of the invention.
- If the specification explicitly states the field of endeavor, that statement is given considerable weight.
It’s important to note that the field of endeavor should be construed broadly to encompass the areas in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to look for a solution to the problem facing the inventor.
To learn more:
The effect of the preamble on claim interpretation is determined on a case-by-case basis. As stated in MPEP 2111.02, “The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
Generally, the preamble limits the claim if:
- It recites essential structure or steps
- It’s necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim
- It’s used to define the scope of the claimed invention
As the Federal Circuit stated in Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., “[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it.”
To learn more:
If the specification doesn’t provide adequate support or antecedent basis for claim terms, an examiner can take several actions. According to MPEP 2173.03:
“If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).”
The examiner’s actions may include:
- Objecting to the specification under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)
- Requiring the applicant to make appropriate amendments to the description
- Asking the applicant to amend the claims
The MPEP further states:
“Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.”
It’s important to note that any amendments to the specification must not introduce new matter, as this would violate 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
To learn more:
New or amended claims can face written description issues if they introduce elements not supported by the original disclosure. The MPEP 2163.03 states:
“To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure.”
Key issues that can arise include:
- Adding new limitations not described in the original specification
- Broadening claim scope beyond what was originally disclosed
- Introducing new combinations of elements not originally presented
To avoid these issues, applicants should ensure that any new or amended claims are fully supported by the original disclosure, either explicitly or implicitly. If support is not clear, applicants may need to provide explanations or point to specific parts of the original disclosure that provide the necessary support.
To learn more:
The utility requirement in patent law refers to the necessity for an invention to have a specific and substantial credible utility. This requirement is established by 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides guidelines for examining applications for compliance with this requirement.
According to the MPEP, “These Guidelines have been promulgated to assist Office personnel in their review of applications for compliance with the utility requirement. The Guidelines do not alter the substantive requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, nor are they designed to obviate the examiner’s review of applications for compliance with all other statutory requirements for patentability.”
In essence, the utility requirement ensures that patented inventions are useful and serve a practical purpose.
To learn more:
The “ready for patenting” requirement is the second prong of the Pfaff test for determining if an invention was “on sale” for the purposes of the on-sale bar. According to MPEP 2133.03(b), an invention is “ready for patenting” when either:
- The invention is reduced to practice; or
- The inventor has prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.
This requirement ensures that the invention was sufficiently developed at the time of the offer for sale. It prevents inventors from claiming the on-sale bar doesn’t apply because the invention wasn’t complete, even if they were commercially exploiting the concept.
To learn more:
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
How does the ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test apply in obviousness determinations?
The ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ (TSM) test is an important concept in determining obviousness in patent examination. According to MPEP 2143, while the TSM test is not the sole test for obviousness, it remains a valid approach:
“The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that ‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’”
The TSM test applies in obviousness determinations as follows:
- Examiners must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references.
- This reason can come from the prior art itself, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or the nature of the problem to be solved.
- The motivation does not need to be explicitly stated in the references but can be implied from the prior art as a whole.
- While TSM is not the only way to establish obviousness, it provides a structured approach to support the rationale for combining references.
Examiners should use the TSM test as one of several tools to provide a clear and reasoned explanation for obviousness rejections.
To learn more:
What role does 35 U.S.C. 112(b) play in determining the subject matter of an invention?
35 U.S.C. 112(b) plays a crucial role in determining the subject matter of an invention by requiring clarity and precision in patent claims. According to MPEP 2172:
“35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that the specification conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.”
This statute ensures that:
- Claims clearly define the boundaries of the invention
- The public can understand the scope of the patent protection
- Examiners can accurately assess patentability
If claims fail to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they may be rejected as indefinite. This emphasizes the importance of drafting claims that precisely capture the invention’s subject matter while being understandable to those skilled in the art.
To learn more:
The best mode requirement contributes to public disclosure by ensuring that inventors share their most effective method of implementing the invention. This aligns with the patent system’s goal of promoting technological progress. As stated in MPEP 2165.02:
“If, however, the applicant [inventor] develops specific instrumentalities or techniques which are recognized by the [inventor] at the time of filing as the best way of carrying out the invention, then the best mode requirement imposes an obligation to disclose that information to the public as well.”
By requiring disclosure of the best mode, the patent system prevents inventors from keeping their most valuable insights secret while still obtaining patent protection. This enhances the quality of information available to the public and other inventors, fostering further innovation in the field.
To learn more:
A continuation-in-part (CIP) application with an additional inventor can still be considered “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP provides an example in MPEP 2136.04:
“Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was ‘by another’ and thus could be used in a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) / 103 rejection of the application.).”
This means that even if a CIP application shares inventors with its parent patent, the addition of a new inventor makes the inventive entities different, allowing the parent patent to be used as prior art against the CIP under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
To learn more:
The standard for enablement in prior art references is consistent across all types of prior art, regardless of their origin or format. As stated in MPEP 2121:
“The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an ‘enabling disclosure’ is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other.”
An enabling disclosure in a prior art reference must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the claimed invention. However, it’s important to note that:
“[P]roof of efficacy is not required for a prior art reference to be enabling for purposes of anticipation.”
This means that a prior art reference can be considered enabling even if it doesn’t prove that the described invention actually works, as long as it provides enough information for a skilled artisan to practice the invention.
To learn more:
Yes, a claim preamble can provide antecedent basis for claim limitations, but this depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the invention. The MPEP 2173.05(e) states:
“The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim.”
While this statement is not specifically about antecedent basis, it underscores the importance of the preamble in claim interpretation. In practice:
- If the preamble is considered to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, it can provide antecedent basis for later claim elements.
- Elements introduced in the preamble can be referred to later in the claim body using “the” or “said” if they are essential to the invention.
- However, if the preamble merely states the intended use or field of use, it may not provide proper antecedent basis for claim limitations.
For example, in a claim starting with “A method of treating diabetes comprising…”, the term “diabetes” could potentially provide antecedent basis for later references to “the disease” or “said condition” in the claim body, if diabetes is central to the invention.
It’s important to note that while preambles can provide antecedent basis, it’s often clearer and safer to introduce key elements in the body of the claim to avoid any ambiguity.
To learn more:
To determine whether your patent application is subject to AIA (America Invents Act) or pre-AIA laws, you need to consider the effective filing date of your claimed invention. According to MPEP 2159:
“Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, determining the effective filing date of a claimed invention for purposes of applying AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 provisions is critical.”
To determine which laws apply:
- Identify the effective filing date of your claimed invention.
- If the effective filing date is on or after March 16, 2013, your application is subject to AIA laws.
- If the effective filing date is before March 16, 2013, your application is subject to pre-AIA laws.
- For applications with multiple claims, if any claim has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, the entire application is subject to AIA laws.
Consult with a patent attorney or agent for a precise determination, as the effective filing date can be affected by factors such as priority claims, continuation applications, and the specific content of the application.
To learn more:
Transitional phrases play a crucial role in patent claim construction by defining the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2111.03, transitional phrases “define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.”
The significance of transitional phrases includes:
- Determining claim scope: They indicate whether the claim is open-ended or closed, affecting what elements can be included in the claimed invention.
- Infringement analysis: The choice of transitional phrase impacts how potential infringement is evaluated.
- Patentability assessment: Examiners use transitional phrases to understand the boundaries of the claimed invention when comparing it to prior art.
For example, the phrase “comprising” in “A composition comprising X, Y, and Z” allows for additional, unrecited elements, while “consisting of” in “A mixture consisting of A and B” excludes any elements not specified.
Understanding and correctly using transitional phrases is essential for patent drafters, examiners, and litigators to accurately define and interpret the scope of patent claims.
To learn more:
Second Paragraph (2)
The MPEP addresses the use of phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or “or the like” in patent claims through specific form paragraphs. These phrases can render claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
1. For the phrase “for example,” form paragraph 7.34.08 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
2. For the phrase “or the like,” form paragraph 7.34.09 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “or the like” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
3. For the phrase “such as,” form paragraph 7.34.10 states:
Regarding claim [1], the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
These phrases create uncertainty about whether the examples or items following them are part of the claimed invention or merely illustrative, making the scope of the claims unclear.
To learn more:
Form paragraphs are standardized text blocks used by patent examiners to communicate rejections in patent applications. For rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, specific form paragraphs are used to address various issues of indefiniteness in claims.
According to the MPEP, Form paragraphs 7.30.02, 7.34 through 7.34.05, 7.34.07 through 7.34.10, 7.34.12 through 7.34.15, 7.35, and 7.35.01 should be used to make rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
These form paragraphs cover a range of issues, from failure to claim the inventor’s invention to the use of relative terms or trademarks in claims.
To learn more: