How does the USPTO determine if a claim is too broad?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim: Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreHow does the AIA use the term “disclosure” in 35 U.S.C. 102?
The AIA (America Invents Act) uses the term “disclosure” in specific contexts within 35 U.S.C. 102, particularly in relation to exceptions to prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior…
Read MoreWhat types of disclosures are considered under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102?
Under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, various types of disclosures are considered. According to MPEP 2152.04, the term “disclosure” encompasses the following: Being patented Described in a printed publication In public use On sale Otherwise available to the public Being described in a U.S. patent, U.S. patent application publication, or WIPO published application The MPEP states:…
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 is the significance of the ‘arranged as in the claim’ requirement for anticipation?
What is the significance of the ‘arranged as in the claim’ requirement for anticipation? The ‘arranged as in the claim’ requirement is a crucial aspect of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102. This requirement means that the prior art reference must not only disclose all elements of the claimed invention but also present them in the…
Read MoreCan secondary considerations overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection?
No, secondary considerations cannot overcome a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 102 (anticipation). This is clearly stated in MPEP 2131.04: “Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based.” The MPEP cites the case of In re Wiggins…
Read MoreCan a prior art reference be used for both anticipation and obviousness rejections?
Can a prior art reference be used for both anticipation and obviousness rejections? Yes, a single prior art reference can be used for both anticipation (35 U.S.C. 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections. The MPEP 2136.02 states: “A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 can be made when the prior art product seems…
Read MoreWhat determines if an application is subject to pre-AIA or AIA patent laws?
The determining factor for whether an application is subject to pre-AIA or AIA patent laws is its filing date. Applications filed before March 16, 2013, are governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. As stated in MPEP 2159.01: “The changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any…
Read MoreWhen do pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 apply to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013?
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 can still apply to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013, under specific circumstances. The MPEP states: “Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 are also subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 if the application has never contained a claim with an effective filing date on or…
Read MoreCan an application be subject to both pre-AIA and AIA provisions simultaneously?
Yes, an application can be subject to both pre-AIA and AIA provisions simultaneously, but with specific limitations. The MPEP 2159.03 states: “Thus, if an application contains, or contained at any time, any claim having an effective filing date that occurs before March 16, 2013, and also contains, or contained at any time, any claim having…
Read More