What constitutes new matter in patent applications?
Amendments to an application which are supported in the original description are NOT considered new matter. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Section 2163.07 states: “Amendments to an application which are supported in the original description are NOT new matter.” This means that changes to the application that are already described or implied in…
Read MoreWhat constitutes joint inventorship under U.S. patent law?
Joint inventorship occurs when an invention is made by two or more persons jointly. According to 35 U.S.C. 116, joint inventors can apply for a patent even if: They did not physically work together or at the same time Each did not make the same type or amount of contribution Each did not contribute to…
Read MoreWhat constitutes conception of an invention?
Conception is a critical element in determining inventorship. The MPEP provides guidance on what constitutes conception: “The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention. Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor. … Insofar as defining an inventor is concerned, reduction to practice, per se,…
Read MoreWhat constitutes an admission as prior art in patent examinations?
An admission as prior art in patent examinations is a statement made by the applicant or their representative that acknowledges certain information as being part of the prior art. According to MPEP 2129, “A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as ‘prior art’ is an…
Read MoreWhat does “prolix” mean in patent claims?
In patent law, “prolix” refers to claims that are excessively wordy, lengthy, or contain unnecessary details that make it difficult to determine the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2173.05(m), examiners may reject claims as prolix “when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is…
Read MoreWhat is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent claims?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion: A citation to…
Read MoreWhat is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent eligibility analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of…
Read MoreWhat role do “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play in Step 2B analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play a crucial role in Step 2B analysis of patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(d): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Key points about well-understood, routine, conventional activities…
Read MoreDoes the specification need to disclose well-known information?
Generally, the specification does not need to disclose information that is well-known to those skilled in the art. MPEP 2164.05(a) states: “The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public.“ This principle is supported…
Read MoreWhat is a well-established utility in patent law?
A well-established utility in patent law is one that meets specific criteria as defined by the USPTO. According to the MPEP, An invention has a well-established utility if (i) a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention is useful based on the characteristics of the invention (e.g., properties or…
Read More