What is the difference between structural elements and material worked upon in patent claims?

In patent claims, particularly apparatus claims, it’s crucial to distinguish between structural elements and material worked upon. MPEP 2115 provides guidance on this distinction: Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Structural elements are the physical components that make up the claimed apparatus. These are the positively recited…

Read More

What are the key steps in reviewing claims during patent examination?

Reviewing claims is a crucial part of patent examination. According to MPEP 2103, the key steps in reviewing claims are: Identify and evaluate each claim limitation: For processes, identify steps or acts to be performed For products, identify discrete physical structures or materials Correlate claim limitations with the disclosure: Match each claim limitation to portions…

Read More

What is required from the requester when filing for inter partes reexamination?

When filing for inter partes reexamination, the requester must provide specific information for each claim they want reexamined. According to MPEP 2643, “35 U.S.C. 311(b)(2) requires that a requester ‘set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.’” This means the requester must explain how…

Read More

How should patent examiners evaluate the “improvements” consideration?

Patent examiners should evaluate the “improvements” consideration by carefully analyzing both the specification and the claims. The MPEP states: “During examination, the examiner should analyze the ‘improvements’ consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects…

Read More

How can examiners determine if a limitation is merely a field of use or technological environment?

Patent examiners need to carefully evaluate claim limitations to determine if they merely indicate a field of use or technological environment. The MPEP 2106.05(h) provides guidance on this process: “For claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, examiners should explain in an…

Read More

How does the field of use consideration differ from insignificant extra-solution activity?

The field of use consideration and insignificant extra-solution activity are both important aspects of patent eligibility analysis, but they can sometimes overlap. According to MPEP 2106.05(h): “Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited…

Read More

How can examiners determine if a claim limitation is more than “mere instructions to apply an exception”?

Examiners should carefully consider each claim on its own merits and evaluate all relevant considerations to determine if an element or combination of elements is more than mere instructions to apply an exception. The MPEP 2106.05(f) provides guidance on this evaluation: “[E]xaminers should carefully consider each claim on its own merits, as well as evaluate…

Read More