Does using phrases like “for example” or “such as” automatically make a claim indefinite?
No, the mere use of phrases like “for example” or “such as” does not automatically render a claim indefinite. The MPEP states: “Note that the mere use of the phrase ‘such as’ or ‘for example’ in a claim does not by itself render the claim indefinite.” However, these phrases can potentially lead to confusion about…
Read MoreWhat actions can an examiner take if claims don’t meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)?
If an examiner determines that claims do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b), they can take specific actions as outlined in MPEP 2171: “If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the…
Read MoreHow has the view on negative limitations in patent claims evolved over time?
The view on negative limitations in patent claims has evolved significantly over time, becoming more accepting. The MPEP 2173.05(i) provides insight into this evolution: “The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. […] Some older cases were critical of negative limitations because they tended…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the subjective requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)?
The subjective requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is evaluated based on the inventor’s or joint inventors’ perspective of their invention. As stated in MPEP 2171: “The first requirement is a subjective one because it is dependent on what the inventor or a joint inventor for a patent regards as his or her invention.” This means…
Read MoreHow should patent examiners evaluate claims that might have previously been rejected under the Old Combination principle?
Patent examiners should evaluate claims based on their compliance with current statutory requirements, particularly 35 U.S.C. 112(b), rather than using the Old Combination principle. The MPEP 2173.05(j) states: “Claims should be considered proper so long as they comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” This means examiners…
Read MoreHow can I determine if a trademark or trade name in a patent claim is indefinite?
To determine if a trademark or trade name in a patent claim is indefinite, consider the following factors: Whether the trademark or trade name is used to identify or describe a particular material or product. If it’s used as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, it may render the claim…
Read MoreHow do examiners determine if claim language is indefinite?
How do examiners determine if claim language is indefinite? Examiners assess claim language for indefiniteness based on the guidance provided in MPEP 2173.01. The key principle is stated as follows: “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.“ To determine if claim language is indefinite, examiners consider: Whether the…
Read MoreWhat makes a “Use” claim definite according to patent law?
A “Use” claim can be considered definite if it clearly recites active, positive steps that delimit how the use is practiced. The MPEP 2173.05(q) provides guidance on this matter, citing the case of Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992): “In the case of Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144…
Read MoreWhat is the current basis for evaluating patent claims that might have previously fallen under the Old Combination principle?
The current basis for evaluating patent claims that might have previously fallen under the Old Combination principle is their compliance with statutory requirements, particularly 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The MPEP 2173.05(j) states: “Claims should be considered proper so long as they comply with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”…
Read MoreWhat are the potential consequences of including “use” claims in a U.S. patent application?
Including “use” claims in a U.S. patent application can have several potential consequences: Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b): “Use” claims are often considered indefinite and may be rejected. Delays in prosecution: Addressing rejections can prolong the patent examination process. Increased costs: Revising claims and responding to office actions can lead to additional attorney fees. Narrower…
Read More