Why are omnibus claims rejected in patent applications?
Omnibus claims are typically rejected in patent applications because they are considered indefinite. The MPEP 2173.05(r) states: “This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.” In other…
Read MoreWhat is an omnibus claim in patent law?
An omnibus claim is a type of patent claim that typically reads as follows: “A device substantially as shown and described.” This type of claim is generally considered problematic in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(r), “This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is…
Read MoreWhat are the key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications?
The key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications are: “Use” claims typically state the use of a product without any active steps, while method claims outline specific steps or actions. “Use” claims are often considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), while properly constructed method claims are not. Method claims are generally…
Read MoreCan a “Use” claim be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b)?
Yes, a “Use” claim can be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both rejections. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “It is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both…
Read MoreWhat is undue multiplicity in patent claims?
Undue multiplicity in patent claims refers to an unreasonable number of repetitious and multiplied claims that confuse rather than clarify the invention. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(n): “Where, in view of the nature and scope of applicant’s invention, applicant presents an unreasonable number of claims which are repetitious and multiplied, the net result of which…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of undescribed broken lines in international design application drawings?
Undescribed broken lines in international design application drawings can lead to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for indefiniteness. The MPEP provides a form paragraph for examiners to use in such cases: “The claim is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required in 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim…
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 ‘three-prong test’ for functional claim language?
The ‘three-prong test’ for functional claim language is a method used by the USPTO to determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language is sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). According to MPEP 2173.05(g), the test involves the following three prongs: Is there a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter…
Read MoreWhat is the standard for indefiniteness in patent claims?
The standard for indefiniteness in patent claims is based on the “reasonable certainty” test established by the Supreme Court. As stated in MPEP 2173.02: “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C.…
Read More