How should applicants respond to new matter objections or rejections?
When responding to new matter objections or rejections, applicants should take the following steps: Review the objection or rejection carefully: Understand whether the issue is with the specification, drawings, or claims. Identify the alleged new matter: Determine which specific content the examiner has identified as new matter. Locate support in the original disclosure: Thoroughly review…
Read MoreHow can an applicant respond to an examiner’s requirement to add a claim for interference?
When an examiner requires an applicant to add a claim for interference under 37 CFR 41.202(c), the applicant must comply but can also express disagreement. The MPEP outlines several ways an applicant can respond: Identify an existing claim in their application or another of their applications that provides a basis for the proposed interference Add…
Read MoreHow can an applicant respond to a rejection based on lack of utility?
When faced with a rejection based on lack of utility, an applicant has several options to respond. According to the MPEP: An applicant can do this using any combination of the following: amendments to the claims, arguments or reasoning, or new evidence submitted in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, or in a…
Read MoreHow can an applicant traverse an examiner’s assertion of official notice?
To properly traverse an examiner’s assertion of official notice, an applicant must: Specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action State why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art According to MPEP 2144.03: “A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence…
Read MoreHow can an applicant express disagreement with a requirement to add a claim for interference?
While an applicant must comply with a requirement to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c), they can still express disagreement with the requirement. According to MPEP 2304.04(b), an applicant can express disagreement in several ways: Identifying a claim already in its application, or another of its applications, that provides a basis for the proposed…
Read MoreCan an examiner require an applicant to respond to issues raised in a protest?
Yes, in certain circumstances, an examiner can require an applicant to respond to issues raised in a protest. According to MPEP 1901.06: “Where necessary or desirable to decide questions raised by the protest, under 37 CFR 1.291(f) the primary examiner can require the applicant to reply to the protest and answer specific questions raised by…
Read MoreHow should an examiner evaluate an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection?
When evaluating an applicant’s response to a subject matter eligibility rejection, an examiner should: Carefully consider all of applicant’s arguments and evidence Determine if any claim amendments change the broadest reasonable interpretation Reevaluate eligibility if persuasive arguments or evidence are presented Provide a rebuttal in the next Office action if maintaining the rejection The MPEP…
Read MoreWhat happens if an applicant fails to respond to a rejection in an interference?
If an applicant fails to respond to a rejection in an interference, the consequences can be severe. According to MPEP 2303: “Failure to respond to a rejection on the merits in an application subject to an interference will result in a recommendation that the claims of the application be rejected.” This means that if an…
Read MoreWhat options does an applicant have in responding to a subject matter eligibility rejection?
An applicant has several options when responding to a subject matter eligibility rejection: Amend the claim to add additional elements or modify existing elements Present arguments explaining why the rejection is in error Submit evidence to traverse the rejection The MPEP outlines these options: “In response to a rejection based on failure to claim patent-eligible…
Read MoreWhat are the applicant’s options when responding to a biological material deposit requirement?
When an applicant is faced with a biological material deposit requirement during patent examination, they have several options to respond. According to MPEP 2411, once the USPTO has established the necessity for access to a biological material, the applicant can: Demonstrate that access to the biological material is not necessary for satisfying the statutory requirements…
Read More