How does “transformation” relate to particular treatment in patent claims?
The concept of “transformation” is closely related to particular treatment in patent claims, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). The MPEP states: “[A] treatment or prophylaxis limitation encompasses more than just the step of ‘administering’ a medication or therapy. For example, ‘administering a medication’ to a patient may also include the steps of determining the appropriate…
Read MoreHow does the transformation of an article to a different state or thing impact patent eligibility?
The transformation of an article to a different state or thing can significantly impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(c): “A transformation resulting in the transformed article having a different function or use, would likely provide significantly more, but a transformation resulting in the transformed article merely having a different location, would likely not provide…
Read MoreWhat factors are considered when evaluating a transformation under MPEP 2106.05(c)?
MPEP 2106.05(c) outlines several factors to consider when evaluating a transformation for patent eligibility: Particularity or generality of the transformation: More particular transformations are more likely to provide significantly more. Degree of particularity of the article: Transformations applied to specific articles are more likely to provide significantly more than those applied to generic or all…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims through form paragraph 7.35.01. This paragraph is used when a trademark or trade name is used as a limitation in a claim to identify or describe a particular material or product. The form paragraph states: Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2].…
Read MoreCan trademarks or trade names be used in patent claims?
While trademarks or trade names can appear in patent claims, their use to identify or describe a particular material or product generally renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). According to MPEP 2173.05(u): “If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between a trademark and a generic term in patent claims?
The distinction between trademarks and generic terms is crucial in patent claims: Trademark: Identifies the source of goods, not the goods themselves. Generic term: Describes the goods or materials directly. The MPEP 2173.05(u) explains: “It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is…
Read MoreWhat is the timing requirement for filing a 1.130 declaration?
The timing for filing a 1.130 declaration is critical to its effectiveness. According to MPEP 2155: “The Office will not apply a disclosure as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) if the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the evidence provided…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the phrase “at the time the claimed invention was made” in Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)?
What is the significance of the phrase “at the time the claimed invention was made” in Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c)? The phrase “at the time the claimed invention was made” is crucial in understanding the application of Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). According to the MPEP 2146: “The phrase ‘at the time the claimed invention was…
Read MoreHow does one make a timely election to proceed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b)?
Making a timely election to proceed under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) is crucial for applicants seeking to benefit from this provision. The MPEP provides guidance on what is considered timely: An election will normally be considered timely if it is made no later than the earlier of either the payment of the issue fee or…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of “at the time of the invention” in equivalence determinations?
What is the significance of “at the time of the invention” in equivalence determinations? The phrase “at the time of the invention” is crucial in equivalence determinations during patent examination. The MPEP emphasizes this temporal aspect: “[T]he examiner must … determine whether the assertedly equivalent element in the prior art or a reference would have…
Read More