How does examination work for international design applications designating the United States?
The examination process for international design applications designating the United States involves several steps: Receipt and Examination: The USPTO examines international design applications based on the published international registration received from the International Bureau. Substantive Examination: As stated in the MPEP, “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389, the USPTO will examine international design applications designating the…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a successful reduction to practice for a design patent?
Reduction to practice for design patents differs from utility patents. The MPEP 2138.05 provides guidance on this topic: “In the case of a design patent application, the invention is reduced to practice when an embodiment of the design is created that allows a person skilled in the art to make an article embodying the design.”…
Read MoreCan a legal entity be listed as an inventor in a U.S. design patent application?
No, a legal entity cannot be listed as an inventor in a U.S. design patent application. The MPEP 2920.01 clearly states: “Under the laws of certain foreign countries, the creator may be a legal entity. Under U.S. national law, however, the inventor cannot be a juristic entity.” This means that while some foreign countries may…
Read MoreHow long is the term for design patents?
The term for design patents varies based on the filing date: For design patents issued from applications filed before May 13, 2015: 14 years from the date of patent grant. For design patents issued from applications filed on or after May 13, 2015: 15 years from the date of patent grant. This change is due…
Read MoreHow long is the term of a design patent in the United States?
According to MPEP 2950, design patents in the United States are granted for a term of 15 years from the date of grant. This is explicitly stated in 35 U.S.C. 173: “Patents for designs shall be granted for the term of 15 years from the date of grant.” This represents an extension from the previous…
Read MoreWhat is a design patent and what does it protect?
A design patent protects the ornamental design for an article of manufacture. According to MPEP 1502, “the subject matter which is claimed is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture (or portion thereof) and not the article itself.” This means that a design patent covers the visual appearance of an object,…
Read MoreWhat is the “visual impression” test for design patents?
What is the “visual impression” test for design patents? The “visual impression” test is an important consideration in design patent examination. According to MPEP 1504.04: “In determining whether a design is primarily functional or primarily ornamental, it is necessary to consider the design as a whole, i.e., the impression of the design as it is…
Read MoreIs it possible to convert a utility patent to a design patent through reissue?
No, a utility patent cannot be converted to a design patent through the reissue process. The reasons for this include: The utility patent is not considered inoperative or invalid, which is a requirement for reissue under 35 U.S.C. 251. Converting to a design patent would exempt the existing utility patent from maintenance fees, which has…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate?
The USPTO determines if a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate by comparing the overall appearance of the claimed designs. The MPEP states: In determining whether a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate, the examiner must compare the overall appearance of the claimed design in the application with the overall appearance of the claimed design…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle design patent applications for naturalistic animal figurines?
The USPTO generally views design patent applications for naturalistic animal figurines as problematic under the simulation doctrine. According to MPEP 1504.01(d): “to take a natural form, in a natural pose, … does not constitute invention” – In re Smith, 25 USPQ 359, 360, 1935 C.D. 565, 566 (CCPA 1935) This principle suggests that a design…
Read More