When can a patent examiner reject claims as prolix?
A patent examiner can reject claims as prolix under specific circumstances outlined in MPEP 2173.05(m). The manual states: “Examiners should reject claims as prolix only when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby.” Additionally, claims may be rejected as prolix “when they contain…
Read MoreWhat does “prolix” mean in patent claims?
In patent law, “prolix” refers to claims that are excessively wordy, lengthy, or contain unnecessary details that make it difficult to determine the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2173.05(m), examiners may reject claims as prolix “when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses the use of trademarks or trade names in patent claims through form paragraph 7.35.01. This paragraph is used when a trademark or trade name is used as a limitation in a claim to identify or describe a particular material or product. The form paragraph states: Claim [1] contains the trademark/trade name [2].…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address relative terms in patent claims?
The MPEP addresses relative terms in patent claims through specific form paragraphs, particularly form paragraph 7.34.03. This paragraph is used when a relative term or term of degree renders a claim indefinite. The form paragraph states: The term “[1]” in claim [2] is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “[1]” is…
Read MoreHow does prolixity in patent claims relate to indefiniteness?
Prolixity in patent claims is closely related to indefiniteness, which is a ground for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). According to MPEP 2173.05(m), claims are considered prolix when they are so wordy or contain so many unnecessary details that “the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby.” When a claim is prolix, it…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between a product-by-process claim and a claim with both product and process elements?
According to MPEP 2173.05(p), there is a key difference between these two types of claims: Product-by-process claim: This is a product claim that defines the product in terms of the process used to make it. It is considered proper and is not inherently indefinite. The MPEP states, “A product-by-process claim, which is a product claim…
Read MoreCan a claim include both a product and a process?
While claims can reference multiple statutory classes of invention, there are specific rules for combining product and process elements. According to MPEP 2173.05(p): A claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may contain a reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without being objectionable, as long as…
Read MoreWhat are the key considerations for patent drafters regarding double inclusion?
Patent drafters should be aware of the nuances surrounding double inclusion when crafting claims. The MPEP 2173.05(o) provides important guidance: “The governing consideration is not double inclusion, but rather is what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims.” Key considerations for patent drafters include: Clarity: Ensure that any instance of double inclusion…
Read MoreHow should patent attorneys approach the use of exemplary language in claims?
Patent attorneys should approach the use of exemplary language in claims with caution. The MPEP 2173.05(d) guidance suggests that examples and preferences are better placed in the specification rather than the claims. When drafting claims: Avoid using phrases like “for example,” “such as,” or similar language that could create ambiguity about the claim scope. If…
Read MoreWhat is an “omnibus claim” and how is it addressed in patent examination?
An “omnibus claim” is a type of claim that fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. The MPEP provides a specific form paragraph (7.35) to address omnibus claims in patent examination. According to the MPEP, an example of an omnibus claim is: “A device substantially as shown and described.”…
Read More