Who reviews the sufficiency of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130?
The sufficiency of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 is reviewed and decided by a primary examiner. As stated in MPEP 717.01(e): The question of sufficiency of affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 should be reviewed and decided by a primary examiner. This means that the primary examiner is responsible for evaluating whether…
Read MoreHow should facts be presented in affidavits or declarations for patent applications?
When presenting facts in affidavits or declarations for patent applications, it’s crucial to provide specific, factual information rather than mere conclusions. According to MPEP 717.01(c): ‘Affidavits or declarations presented to show that the disclosure of an application is sufficient to one skilled in the art are not acceptable to establish facts for the reason that…
Read MoreHow should facts be presented in affidavits or declarations for antedating a reference?
When presenting facts in affidavits or declarations for antedating a reference, it’s crucial to follow the guidelines outlined in MPEP 715.07. The key points are: Present specific facts, not conclusions Provide clear and convincing evidence of prior invention Include dates of conception and reduction to practice Explain any delay between conception and reduction to practice…
Read MoreHow are timely submitted affidavits and declarations handled by the patent examiner?
When affidavits or declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 are timely submitted and admitted, the patent examiner is required to acknowledge and comment on them in the next office action. According to MPEP 717.01(f): All admitted affidavits and declarations are acknowledged and commented upon by the examiner in the next succeeding action, and an indication of…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for exhibits filed with affidavits or declarations in patent applications?
Exhibits filed as part of affidavits or declarations in patent applications must comply with specific requirements. According to MPEP 715.07(d), “Exhibits, such as those filed as part of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a), must comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.91 to be entered into an application file.” This means that…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle partial disqualification of prior art through a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration?
The USPTO allows for partial disqualification of prior art through a 37 CFR 1.130(b) declaration. If the declaration shows that only a portion of the intervening disclosure was previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, the remaining portion may still be available as prior art. The MPEP states: Any remaining portion of an intervening grace period…
Read MoreHow can an inventor overcome a rejection based on a reference with a different inventive entity?
An inventor can overcome a rejection based on a reference with a different inventive entity in several ways: By filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing prior invention By filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 The MPEP states: An unequivocal declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by S that he/she…
Read MoreWhat options are available if an examiner refuses to enter an affidavit as untimely?
If a patent examiner refuses to enter an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 as untimely, the applicant has a specific recourse. According to MPEP 717.01(f): Review of an examiner’s refusal to enter an affidavit as untimely is by petition and not by appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In re Deters,…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of MPEP 715.01(a)?
MPEP 715.01(a) provides guidance on how to handle situations where a reference (patent or published application) names a different inventive entity with at least one common inventor compared to the application under examination. It specifically addresses how to overcome rejections based on such references using affidavits or declarations. The section states: When subject matter disclosed…
Read MoreHow do affidavits or declarations support nonobviousness in patent applications?
Affidavits or declarations play a crucial role in supporting nonobviousness in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.01(a): “Affidavits or declarations, when timely presented, containing evidence of criticality or unexpected results, commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, skepticism of experts, etc., must be considered by the examiner in determining the issue of obviousness…
Read More