How should examiners evaluate the improvement to technology in a patent application?

Examiners should follow a two-step process to evaluate improvements to technology in a patent application, as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): Evaluate the specification: The examiner should first determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The MPEP states: “The…

Read More

How does the “effective filing date” affect CIP applications in patent examination?

The “effective filing date” plays a crucial role in the examination of Continuation-In-Part (CIP) applications. According to MPEP 2133.01: “The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis and not an application-by-application basis.” This means that: Each claim in a CIP application is evaluated separately to determine its effective filing…

Read More

How do examiners determine which claims in a CIP application are entitled to the parent application’s filing date?

Examiners must carefully analyze each claim in a Continuation-In-Part (CIP) application to determine which are entitled to the parent application’s filing date. The MPEP 2133.01 provides guidance: “If an application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of…

Read More

How can patent examiners visualize variant embodiments?

Patent examiners can visualize variant embodiments by sketching or diagramming the subject matter as defined by the claim. MPEP 904.01(a) suggests that “For any claim capable of such treatment (e.g., a machine or other apparatus), the subject matter as defined by the claim may be sketched or diagrammed in order to clearly delineate the limitations…

Read More