What is the purpose of requiring an applicant to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c)?
The purpose of requiring an applicant to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c) is to provoke an interference proceeding. According to MPEP 2304.04(b), this requirement may be made “to obtain a clearer definition of the interfering subject matter or to establish whether the applicant will pursue claims to the interfering subject matter.” The MPEP…
Read MoreWhen should an interference be suggested during patent examination?
An interference should rarely be suggested until examination is completed on all other issues. According to MPEP 2303, “Each pending claim must be allowed, finally rejected, or canceled. Any appeal from a final rejection must be completed, including any judicial review. Any petition must be decided.” This means that examiners should resolve all other patentability…
Read MoreWhen 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 MoreWhat is an interference proceeding in patent law?
An interference proceeding is a contest under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 135(a) between an application and either another application or a patent. As stated in the MPEP 2301: “An interference is declared to assist the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in determining priority, that is, which party first invented the commonly claimed…
Read MoreWhat is interference practice in patent law?
Interference practice is a procedure used to determine priority of invention between two parties. It is based on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(g). As stated in the MPEP: “An interference is an inter partes proceeding directed at determining the first to invent as among the parties to the proceeding, involving two or more pending applications naming…
Read MoreWhat is an interference in patent law?
An interference in patent law is a proceeding to determine which party has the right to a patent when two or more parties claim the same invention. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Chapter 2300 covers interference and derivation proceedings. According to MPEP 2304, “The suggestion for an interference may come from an applicant…
Read MoreWhat is an applicant suggestion for interference?
An applicant suggestion for interference is a process where an applicant, including a reissue applicant, suggests an interference with another application or patent. This is outlined in 37 CFR 41.202, which states: “An applicant, including a reissue applicant, may suggest an interference with another application or a patent.” The suggestion must meet specific requirements, including…
Read MoreWhat happens to other USPTO proceedings during an interference?
When an interference is initiated, other proceedings within the USPTO for the involved file are generally suspended. The MPEP 2307 clearly states: “Other proceedings for the involved file within the Office are suspended except as the Board may order.” This suspension ensures that the Board has exclusive control over the involved file during the interference.…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle copending reexamination and interference proceedings?
How does the USPTO handle copending reexamination and interference proceedings? The USPTO handles copending reexamination and interference proceedings as follows: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction over an interference proceeding. The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) has jurisdiction over any reexamination proceeding. When both proceedings are copending, the BPAI’s jurisdiction over the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle concurrent reexamination and interference proceedings?
When reexamination and interference proceedings are concurrent, the USPTO follows specific guidelines to manage both processes. According to MPEP 2686.04: “If a reexamination proceeding is ordered while an interference proceeding is pending, the reexamination proceeding is suspended until the interference proceeding is terminated at the interference level (i.e., the interference is terminated as to the…
Read More