When is a broad claim considered indefinite?
A broad claim is considered indefinite when it lacks clarity in defining its scope. The MPEP 2173.04 states: “A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between breadth and indefiniteness in patent claims?
Breadth and indefiniteness are distinct concepts in patent claims. As stated in MPEP 2173.04, “Breadth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness.” The section further explains: “A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is…
Read MoreWhat are the grounds for rejection based on deposit issues in biotechnology patent applications?
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) outlines several grounds for rejection based on deposit issues in biotechnology patent applications. These include: Lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Lack of best mode under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Failure to claim what the…
Read MoreHow can I avoid indefiniteness in claims that reference both products and processes?
To avoid indefiniteness in claims that reference both products and processes, follow these guidelines from MPEP 2173.05(p): Ensure the claim is clearly directed to either the product or the process, not both. When referencing a process in a product claim, make it clear that the claim is for the product intended to be used in…
Read MoreWhat is the “approximation” term in patent claims?
What is the “approximation” term in patent claims? The term “approximation” in patent claims is a type of relative terminology that can be used to describe a range or value. According to MPEP 2173.05(b), “approximation” terms are acceptable in patent claims when the degree of precision appropriate for the subject matter is known to one…
Read MoreHow can patent applicants address trademark issues in their claims?
Patent applicants can address trademark issues in their claims by following these steps: Review claims for any trademarks or trade names used as limitations. Replace trademarks with appropriate generic terms that accurately describe the material or product. Ensure there is sufficient support in the application for any generic terms used to replace trademarks. If a…
Read MoreDoes additional elements in the claim body not mentioned in the preamble cause indefiniteness?
No, the presence of additional elements in the body of a claim that are not mentioned in the preamble does not automatically render the claim indefinite. The MPEP 2173.05(e) clarifies: “The mere fact that the body of a claim recites additional elements which do not appear in the claim’s preamble does not render the claim…
Read MoreWhen should an examiner make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for exemplary claim language?
An examiner should consider making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) when exemplary claim language creates uncertainty about the claim’s scope. The MPEP 2173.05(d) states: “In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should…
Read MoreHow does indefiniteness apply to design patent claims?
Indefiniteness in design patent claims is addressed in MPEP 1504.04. The section states: “A claim is indefinite when it is unclear what design applicant is claiming.” This can occur in several ways: When the claim language is vague or ambiguous When the drawings are inconsistent or unclear When there’s a discrepancy between the claim and…
Read More