When is a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit not an acceptable method to overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection?
A 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit is not an acceptable method to overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection in certain circumstances. According to the MPEP: “When the claims of the reference U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication and the application are directed to the same invention or are obvious variants, an affidavit or declaration…
Read MoreCan a terminal disclaimer overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection?
No, a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection. This is explicitly stated in the MPEP: “Note that a terminal disclaimer does not overcome a pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection. See, e.g., In re Bartfeld, 925 F.2d 1450, 17 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).” A terminal disclaimer is typically used to overcome…
Read MoreHow does a terminal disclaimer affect patent term adjustment eligibility?
A terminal disclaimer can significantly affect patent term adjustment eligibility. According to MPEP 2751: “Patents subject to a terminal disclaimer are not eligible for patent term adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154(b).“ This means that if a patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer, it is not eligible for any patent term adjustment, regardless of any…
Read MoreHow does a terminal disclaimer affect patent term adjustment?
A terminal disclaimer can limit the effect of patent term adjustment (PTA). According to MPEP 2731: “37 CFR 1.703(g) indicates that no patent, the term of which has been disclaimed beyond a specified date, shall be adjusted under 37 CFR 1.702 and 1.703 beyond the expiration date specified in the disclaimer (35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(B)).“ This…
Read MoreWhat is the scope of an ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 304?
An ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 304 provides a complete reexamination of the patent claims based on prior art patents and printed publications. The MPEP states: “A reexamination proceeding ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304 provides a complete reexamination of the patent claims on the basis of prior art patents and printed publications.” Additionally, double…
Read MoreHow does pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) affect double patenting rejections?
Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) does not affect double patenting rejections. The MPEP clearly states: “In addition, double patenting rejections, based on subject matter now disqualified as prior art in amended pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c), should still be made as appropriate. See 37 CFR 1.78(c) and MPEP § 804.” This means that even if certain subject…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 1901.02 address information about potential interferences in protests?
MPEP 1901.02 specifically mentions that information about potential interferences can be included in a protest. The section states: “Information which can be relied on in a protest… includes information about other applications or patents which might result in double patenting or a Patent Office interference proceeding.” This means that if a protestor is aware of…
Read MoreHow are pending U.S. patent applications treated in terms of confidentiality and prior art?
Pending U.S. patent applications are generally kept confidential, but there are important exceptions and considerations: Most pending applications are preserved in confidence as per 37 CFR 1.14(a). Exceptions include published applications, reissue applications, and applications where public inspection has been granted. Applications with common assignees or inventors may be used for certain rejections, even if…
Read MoreWhat issues can be considered in ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304?
Ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304 is limited to considerations of prior art patents and printed publications. The MPEP states: “Rejections will not be based on matters other than patents or printed publications, such as public use or sale, inventorship, 35 U.S.C. 101, conduct issues, etc.” However, certain ancillary matters may be considered,…
Read MoreHow should an applicant handle potentially conflicting claims in copending applications?
How should an applicant handle potentially conflicting claims in copending applications? When dealing with potentially conflicting claims in copending applications, applicants must be proactive and transparent. MPEP 2001.06(b) provides guidance: “If the copending application is not commonly owned and the applicant is aware of the copending application, the applicant should disclose the existence of the…
Read More