How does streamlined analysis differ from the full Alice/Mayo test?
How does streamlined analysis differ from the full Alice/Mayo test? The streamlined analysis differs from the full Alice/Mayo test in several key ways: Scope: Streamlined analysis is a quick assessment, while the Alice/Mayo test is a more comprehensive evaluation. Application: Streamlined analysis is used for claims that clearly do not tie up a judicial exception,…
Read MoreHow does the streamlined analysis apply to claims involving improvements to technology or computer functionality?
The streamlined analysis is particularly applicable to claims involving clear improvements to technology or computer functionality. According to MPEP 2106.06(b): “As explained by the Federal Circuit, some improvements to technology or to computer functionality are not abstract when appropriately claimed, and thus claims to such improvements do not always need to undergo the full eligibility…
Read MoreHow does the streamlined analysis approach nature-based product claims?
The streamlined analysis approach to nature-based product claims focuses on whether the claim attempts to tie up the nature-based product. According to MPEP 2106.06(a): “A claim that recites a nature-based product, but clearly does not attempt to tie up the nature-based product, does not require a markedly different characteristics analysis to identify a ‘product of…
Read MoreWhat statutory provisions address undue breadth in patent claims?
Undue breadth in patent claims can be addressed under different statutory provisions, depending on the specific issues. The MPEP 2173.04 outlines three main scenarios: 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph: “If the claim is too broad because it does not set forth that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards…
Read MoreWhat are the statutory provisions prohibiting the introduction of new matter?
There are two primary statutory provisions that prohibit the introduction of new matter in patent applications: 35 U.S.C. 132: This provision states that “no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. 251: This provision applies specifically to reissue applications and states that “no new matter shall be introduced into…
Read MoreHow are Statutory Invention Registrations (SIRs) treated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?
Statutory Invention Registrations (SIRs) are treated similarly to U.S. patents under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). The MPEP explains: “In accordance with former 35 U.S.C. 157(c), a published SIR will be treated the same as a U.S. patent for all defensive purposes, usable as a reference as of its filing date in the same manner as…
Read MoreWhat is statutory double patenting?
Statutory double patenting is a rejection based on the requirement in 35 U.S.C. 101 that an inventor may obtain only one patent for the same invention. The MPEP explains: “35 U.S.C. 101 requires that whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only ONE patent therefor. Thus, it prevents two patents issuing on the…
Read MoreWhat are the statutory categories for patentable inventions under 35 U.S.C. 101?
According to 35 U.S.C. 101, there are four statutory categories for patentable inventions: Process Machine Manufacture Composition of matter The MPEP directly quotes the statute: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the…
Read MoreHow is the statutory basis for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections stated?
The statutory basis for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejections is stated using form paragraph 7.20.fti. This paragraph provides the full text of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as follows: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)?
The statutory bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is a critical concept in patent law that can prevent an inventor from obtaining a patent. According to MPEP 2133.02: “A rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) cannot be overcome by affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.131 (Rule 131 Declarations), foreign priority dates, or evidence that…
Read More