How does the USPTO notify the public about tentative abstract idea rejections?
The USPTO has a process for notifying the public about tentative abstract idea rejections. According to the MPEP: The TC Director will then inform Patents Management that this procedure has been used so that the public can be notified, for example, on USPTO.GOV at the Subject Matter Eligibility website. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(3)) This process ensures: Transparency…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a document is publicly accessible for patent purposes?
The USPTO determines public accessibility of a document for patent purposes based on several factors outlined in MPEP 2128.01. Key considerations include: The extent of dissemination The ease with which the document can be located The intended audience’s ability to find the document The MPEP provides guidance: “Whether a document is ‘publicly accessible’ is determined…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle prior art rejections when operability is questioned?
The USPTO handles prior art rejections where operability is questioned as follows: The examiner must provide a reasonable basis to question the operability of the prior art. If operability is questioned, the burden shifts to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence. The prior art is presumed to be operable unless proven otherwise. As stated in…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO presume inventorship in patent applications?
The USPTO generally presumes that the named inventors in a patent application are the true inventors of the claimed subject matter. This presumption is mentioned in MPEP 2157: “The Office presumes that the named inventor or joint inventors in the application are the actual inventor or joint inventors to be named on the patent. See…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle inherency rejections for compositions or products?
How does the USPTO handle inherency rejections for compositions or products? The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling inherency rejections for compositions or products. According to MPEP 2112: “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” For compositions or products, the MPEP…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle rejections based on lack of utility and enablement?
The USPTO handles rejections based on lack of utility (35 U.S.C. 101) and lack of enablement (35 U.S.C. 112(a)) separately to avoid confusion. The MPEP states: “To avoid confusion during examination, any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, based on grounds other than ‘lack of utility’ should be imposed…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle utility rejections for inventions with “throwaway” utilities?
The USPTO addresses “throwaway” utilities in patent applications as part of its examination process. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle terms of degree in patent claims?
The USPTO handles terms of degree in patent claims by evaluating whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. According to MPEP 2173.02: “Terms of degree are not necessarily indefinite… If the specification does provide some standard for measuring that degree, a rejection is not warranted… For example, in Ex parte Oetiker, 23…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims that cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments?
The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling claims that cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments. According to the MPEP: “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1:…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims directed to a single means?
The USPTO treats claims directed to a single means with special consideration due to their potential lack of enablement. According to MPEP 2164.06(c): “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA…
Read More