Patent Law FAQ
This FAQ answers all your questions about patent law, patent procedure, and the patent examination process.
MPEP 2100 – Patentability (2)
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 USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01:
“Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.”
The MPEP emphasizes that many research tools, such as gas chromatographs and screening assays, have clear, specific, and unquestionable utility. The key is to distinguish between inventions with specifically identified substantial utility and those whose asserted utility requires further research to identify or confirm.
For intermediate products, the MPEP states that a claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no specific, substantial, and credible utility would not meet the utility requirement. The focus should be on whether the claimed invention has a real-world use that provides an immediate benefit to the public.
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 2107.01 – General Principles Governing Utility Rejections (1)
The USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01:
“Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.”
The MPEP emphasizes that many research tools, such as gas chromatographs and screening assays, have clear, specific, and unquestionable utility. The key is to distinguish between inventions with specifically identified substantial utility and those whose asserted utility requires further research to identify or confirm.
For intermediate products, the MPEP states that a claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no specific, substantial, and credible utility would not meet the utility requirement. The focus should be on whether the claimed invention has a real-world use that provides an immediate benefit to the public.
To learn more:
Patent Law (2)
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 USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01:
“Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.”
The MPEP emphasizes that many research tools, such as gas chromatographs and screening assays, have clear, specific, and unquestionable utility. The key is to distinguish between inventions with specifically identified substantial utility and those whose asserted utility requires further research to identify or confirm.
For intermediate products, the MPEP states that a claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no specific, substantial, and credible utility would not meet the utility requirement. The focus should be on whether the claimed invention has a real-world use that provides an immediate benefit to the public.
To learn more:
Patent Procedure (2)
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 USPTO applies the same utility standards to research tools and intermediate products as it does to other inventions. According to MPEP 2107.01:
“Labels such as ‘research tool,’ ‘intermediate’ or ‘for research purposes’ are not helpful in determining if an applicant has identified a specific and substantial utility for the invention.”
The MPEP emphasizes that many research tools, such as gas chromatographs and screening assays, have clear, specific, and unquestionable utility. The key is to distinguish between inventions with specifically identified substantial utility and those whose asserted utility requires further research to identify or confirm.
For intermediate products, the MPEP states that a claim to an intermediate product for use in making a final product that has no specific, substantial, and credible utility would not meet the utility requirement. The focus should be on whether the claimed invention has a real-world use that provides an immediate benefit to the public.
To learn more: