Patent Law FAQ

Yes, there is one exception. A suspended or excluded patent attorney or agent can inspect an application if they are the inventor or applicant of that particular application. The MPEP clarifies:

USPTO employees are forbidden to hold either oral or written communication with an attorney or agent who has been suspended or excluded from practice by the USPTO regarding an application unless it is one in which said attorney or agent is an inventor or the applicant.

So while suspended or excluded practitioners generally cannot inspect applications, they can still access ones in which they are directly involved as the inventor or applicant.

If an examiner comes across a patent application that contains national security markings but does not have a Secrecy Order imposed, MPEP 130 instructs that “the examiner should require the applicant to seek imposition of a Secrecy Order or authority to cancel the markings.” This should be done preferably with the first office action and before final disposition of the application.

37 CFR 5.1(d) states that if no Secrecy Order has issued, the USPTO will set a time period for the applicant to take one of three actions to prevent abandonment:

1. Obtain a Secrecy Order
2. Declassify the application
3. Submit evidence of a good faith effort to obtain a Secrecy Order under 37 CFR 5.2(a)

Additionally, per 37 CFR 5.1(e), “a national security classified patent application will not be allowed until the application is declassified and any Secrecy Order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(a) has been rescinded.”

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

If there’s an error in the preprinted prior application data, the following steps should be taken:

1. If the error is in the Patent Data Portal database, it can be corrected by technical support staff of the Technology Center.
2. After the data is corrected, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file.
3. If the error was made by the applicant, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.
4. In some cases, a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required.

The MPEP states: “Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate. Upon entry of the data, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file. If the error was an applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming priority to a PCT international application can be done in two ways:

1. In a U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371:
   • The priority claim is made in the PCT application
   • No further action is needed when entering the national stage
2. In a U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a):
   • File within 12 months of the PCT filing date
   • Make the priority claim in an application data sheet
   • Provide a certified copy of the PCT application (unless already filed with the PCT)

In both cases, the PCT application must designate the United States. The specific requirements are detailed in 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and (f)(2) for national stage applications, and 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) and (f)(1) for applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

If there’s an error in the preprinted prior application data, the following steps should be taken:

1. If the error is in the Patent Data Portal database, it can be corrected by technical support staff of the Technology Center.
2. After the data is corrected, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file.
3. If the error was made by the applicant, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.
4. In some cases, a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required.

The MPEP states: “Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate. Upon entry of the data, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file. If the error was an applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.” (MPEP 202)

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:

• patent drawings
• proof of conception
• inventor’s mental picture
• visual representation
• patent evidence

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:

• patent eligibility
• computer functionality
• Alice/Mayo test
• judicial exception
• abstract idea

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:

• patent eligibility
• computer functionality
• Alice/Mayo test
• judicial exception
• abstract idea

Claiming priority to a PCT international application can be done in two ways:

1. In a U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371:
   • The priority claim is made in the PCT application
   • No further action is needed when entering the national stage
2. In a U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a):
   • File within 12 months of the PCT filing date
   • Make the priority claim in an application data sheet
   • Provide a certified copy of the PCT application (unless already filed with the PCT)

In both cases, the PCT application must designate the United States. The specific requirements are detailed in 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and (f)(2) for national stage applications, and 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) and (f)(1) for applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).

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:

• patent drawings
• proof of conception
• inventor’s mental picture
• visual representation
• patent evidence

The USPTO has specific provisions for handling partial assignees in patent issuance:

1. If one or more assignees, together with one or more inventors, hold the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of both the assignee(s) and the inventor(s).
2. If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

This is outlined in 37 CFR 3.81(c): (1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor. (2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

No, including government support information on a provisional application cover sheet is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6). The MPEP states:

Providing information concerning government support on a provisional application cover sheet does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6) which requires that the a statement be included within the specification of such application and any patent issuing thereon specifying that the invention was made with Government support and that the Government has certain rights in the invention.

The government license rights statement must be included within the specification itself, not just on the cover sheet.

To correct an error in a recorded assignment document at the USPTO, you have two main options:

• Cover sheet corrections: For errors in the cover sheet data only, you can submit a corrective document identifying the reel and frame number where the assignment is recorded and explaining the correction.
• Errors in the assignment document: For errors in the actual assignment document, you need to record a corrective document. This can be either a new assignment or other document correcting the original assignment.

As stated in MPEP 323: “The ‘Correction’ box on the Recordation Form Cover Sheet should be checked to indicate that the new submission is to correct an assignment already recorded.”

For more information on assignment correction, visit: assignment correction.

For more information on cover sheet, visit: cover sheet.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

The USPTO has specific provisions for handling partial assignees in patent issuance:

1. If one or more assignees, together with one or more inventors, hold the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of both the assignee(s) and the inventor(s).
2. If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

This is outlined in 37 CFR 3.81(c): (1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor. (2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

No, including government support information on a provisional application cover sheet is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6). The MPEP states:

Providing information concerning government support on a provisional application cover sheet does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6) which requires that the a statement be included within the specification of such application and any patent issuing thereon specifying that the invention was made with Government support and that the Government has certain rights in the invention.

The government license rights statement must be included within the specification itself, not just on the cover sheet.

To correct an error in a recorded assignment document at the USPTO, you have two main options:

• Cover sheet corrections: For errors in the cover sheet data only, you can submit a corrective document identifying the reel and frame number where the assignment is recorded and explaining the correction.
• Errors in the assignment document: For errors in the actual assignment document, you need to record a corrective document. This can be either a new assignment or other document correcting the original assignment.

As stated in MPEP 323: “The ‘Correction’ box on the Recordation Form Cover Sheet should be checked to indicate that the new submission is to correct an assignment already recorded.”

For more information on assignment correction, visit: assignment correction.

For more information on cover sheet, visit: cover sheet.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

Yes, there is one exception. A suspended or excluded patent attorney or agent can inspect an application if they are the inventor or applicant of that particular application. The MPEP clarifies:

USPTO employees are forbidden to hold either oral or written communication with an attorney or agent who has been suspended or excluded from practice by the USPTO regarding an application unless it is one in which said attorney or agent is an inventor or the applicant.

So while suspended or excluded practitioners generally cannot inspect applications, they can still access ones in which they are directly involved as the inventor or applicant.

The USPTO has specific provisions for handling partial assignees in patent issuance:

1. If one or more assignees, together with one or more inventors, hold the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of both the assignee(s) and the inventor(s).
2. If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

This is outlined in 37 CFR 3.81(c): (1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor. (2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

If there’s an error in the preprinted prior application data, the following steps should be taken:

1. If the error is in the Patent Data Portal database, it can be corrected by technical support staff of the Technology Center.
2. After the data is corrected, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file.
3. If the error was made by the applicant, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.
4. In some cases, a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required.

The MPEP states: “Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate. Upon entry of the data, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file. If the error was an applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming priority to a PCT international application can be done in two ways:

1. In a U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371:
   • The priority claim is made in the PCT application
   • No further action is needed when entering the national stage
2. In a U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a):
   • File within 12 months of the PCT filing date
   • Make the priority claim in an application data sheet
   • Provide a certified copy of the PCT application (unless already filed with the PCT)

In both cases, the PCT application must designate the United States. The specific requirements are detailed in 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and (f)(2) for national stage applications, and 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) and (f)(1) for applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).

No, including government support information on a provisional application cover sheet is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6). The MPEP states:

Providing information concerning government support on a provisional application cover sheet does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6) which requires that the a statement be included within the specification of such application and any patent issuing thereon specifying that the invention was made with Government support and that the Government has certain rights in the invention.

The government license rights statement must be included within the specification itself, not just on the cover sheet.

If an examiner comes across a patent application that contains national security markings but does not have a Secrecy Order imposed, MPEP 130 instructs that “the examiner should require the applicant to seek imposition of a Secrecy Order or authority to cancel the markings.” This should be done preferably with the first office action and before final disposition of the application.

37 CFR 5.1(d) states that if no Secrecy Order has issued, the USPTO will set a time period for the applicant to take one of three actions to prevent abandonment:

1. Obtain a Secrecy Order
2. Declassify the application
3. Submit evidence of a good faith effort to obtain a Secrecy Order under 37 CFR 5.2(a)

Additionally, per 37 CFR 5.1(e), “a national security classified patent application will not be allowed until the application is declassified and any Secrecy Order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2(a) has been rescinded.”

To correct an error in a recorded assignment document at the USPTO, you have two main options:

• Cover sheet corrections: For errors in the cover sheet data only, you can submit a corrective document identifying the reel and frame number where the assignment is recorded and explaining the correction.
• Errors in the assignment document: For errors in the actual assignment document, you need to record a corrective document. This can be either a new assignment or other document correcting the original assignment.

As stated in MPEP 323: “The ‘Correction’ box on the Recordation Form Cover Sheet should be checked to indicate that the new submission is to correct an assignment already recorded.”

For more information on assignment correction, visit: assignment correction.

For more information on cover sheet, visit: cover sheet.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Correcting or adding drawings after a patent application is filed is addressed in MPEP 608.02, subsection II. The key points are:

• Drawings can be corrected, revised, or added if no new matter is introduced.
• The applicant must submit a proposed drawing correction in reply to the Office action.
• For non-provisional applications, replacement sheets of corrected drawings must be submitted.
• For provisional applications, corrected drawings may be submitted as an amendment to the application.

The MPEP states: ‘Where a drawing is to be amended, applicant must submit a replacement sheet of drawings which complies with 37 CFR 1.84 and includes all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended.’ This ensures that the entire drawing set remains consistent and complete.

To learn more:

• drawing corrections
• patent application amendments
• replacement sheets
• USPTO requirements

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:

• patent drawings
• proof of conception
• inventor’s mental picture
• visual representation
• patent evidence

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:

• patent eligibility
• computer functionality
• Alice/Mayo test
• judicial exception
• abstract idea

A Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) request for design patents must include specific information to be considered acceptable. According to MPEP ¶ 2.30, the key elements are:

• The filing date of the CPA request
• The parent application number

The MPEP states: The request filed on [1] for a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d) based on parent Application No. [2] is acceptable and a CPA has been established. Here, [1] represents the filing date of the CPA request, and [2] is the parent application number. These details are crucial for establishing the continuity between the parent application and the CPA.

For more information on USPTO filing procedures, visit: USPTO filing procedures.

According to 37 CFR 1.9(a)(1), a national application is defined as:

• A U.S. application for patent filed in the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. 111
• An international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid
• An international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the USPTO has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10

This definition encompasses various types of patent applications that are treated as national applications by the USPTO.

The USPTO has specific provisions for handling partial assignees in patent issuance:

1. If one or more assignees, together with one or more inventors, hold the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of both the assignee(s) and the inventor(s).
2. If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

This is outlined in 37 CFR 3.81(c): (1) If one or more assignee, together with one or more inventor, holds the entire right, title, and interest in the application, the patent may issue in the names of the assignee and the inventor. (2) If multiple assignees hold the entire right, title, and interest to the exclusion of all the inventors, the patent may issue in the names of the multiple assignees.

If there’s an error in the preprinted prior application data, the following steps should be taken:

1. If the error is in the Patent Data Portal database, it can be corrected by technical support staff of the Technology Center.
2. After the data is corrected, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file.
3. If the error was made by the applicant, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.
4. In some cases, a petition for an unintentionally delayed benefit claim may also be required.

The MPEP states: “Should there be an error in the preprinted prior application data, the correction or entry of the data in the Patent Data Portal data base can be made by technical support staff of the Technology Center, if appropriate. Upon entry of the data, a new bib-data sheet should be printed and scanned into the file. If the error was an applicant error, the examiner should require correction via a corrected or supplemental application data sheet or an amendment, as appropriate.” (MPEP 202)

Claiming priority to a PCT international application can be done in two ways:

1. In a U.S. national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371:
   • The priority claim is made in the PCT application
   • No further action is needed when entering the national stage
2. In a U.S. nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a):
   • File within 12 months of the PCT filing date
   • Make the priority claim in an application data sheet
   • Provide a certified copy of the PCT application (unless already filed with the PCT)

In both cases, the PCT application must designate the United States. The specific requirements are detailed in 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2) and (f)(2) for national stage applications, and 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1) and (f)(1) for applications under 35 U.S.C. 111(a).

No, including government support information on a provisional application cover sheet is not sufficient to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6). The MPEP states:

Providing information concerning government support on a provisional application cover sheet does not satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 202(c)(6) which requires that the a statement be included within the specification of such application and any patent issuing thereon specifying that the invention was made with Government support and that the Government has certain rights in the invention.

The government license rights statement must be included within the specification itself, not just on the cover sheet.

To correct an error in a recorded assignment document at the USPTO, you have two main options:

• Cover sheet corrections: For errors in the cover sheet data only, you can submit a corrective document identifying the reel and frame number where the assignment is recorded and explaining the correction.
• Errors in the assignment document: For errors in the actual assignment document, you need to record a corrective document. This can be either a new assignment or other document correcting the original assignment.

As stated in MPEP 323: “The ‘Correction’ box on the Recordation Form Cover Sheet should be checked to indicate that the new submission is to correct an assignment already recorded.”

For more information on assignment correction, visit: assignment correction.

For more information on cover sheet, visit: cover sheet.

For more information on USPTO, visit: USPTO.

Correcting or adding drawings after a patent application is filed is addressed in MPEP 608.02, subsection II. The key points are:

• Drawings can be corrected, revised, or added if no new matter is introduced.
• The applicant must submit a proposed drawing correction in reply to the Office action.
• For non-provisional applications, replacement sheets of corrected drawings must be submitted.
• For provisional applications, corrected drawings may be submitted as an amendment to the application.

The MPEP states: ‘Where a drawing is to be amended, applicant must submit a replacement sheet of drawings which complies with 37 CFR 1.84 and includes all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended.’ This ensures that the entire drawing set remains consistent and complete.

To learn more:

• drawing corrections
• patent application amendments
• replacement sheets
• USPTO requirements

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:

• patent drawings
• proof of conception
• inventor’s mental picture
• visual representation
• patent evidence

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:

• patent eligibility
• computer functionality
• Alice/Mayo test
• judicial exception
• abstract idea