How does the USPTO interpret the phrase “design for an article” in 35 U.S.C. 171?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) interprets the phrase “design for an article” in 35 U.S.C. 171 broadly. According to MPEP 1502, the interpretation is as follows: “171 refers, not to the design of an article, but to the design for an article, and is inclusive of ornamental designs of all kinds including…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle design patent applications with offensive content?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejects design patent applications containing offensive content as nonstatutory subject matter. This rejection is based on the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171 and the principles outlined in 37 CFR 1.3. MPEP 1504.01(e) states: “The disclosure, and therefore the claim in this application, is rejected as being offensive…
Read MoreWhat is the legal basis for rejecting design patents with offensive content?
The legal basis for rejecting design patents with offensive content stems from multiple sources in U.S. patent law and regulations: 35 U.S.C. 171: This statute defines the requirements for design patents. MPEP 1504.01(e) interprets this to exclude offensive subject matter: “Design applications which disclose subject matter which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion,…
Read MoreCan a design patent be rejected for ethical reasons?
Yes, a design patent can be rejected for ethical reasons, particularly if it contains offensive subject matter. The MPEP 1504.01(e) provides guidance on this matter: “Design applications which disclose subject matter which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, such as those which include caricatures or depictions, should be…
Read More