Can a primary examiner refuse to prepare a Patentability Report?
Yes, a primary examiner can refuse to prepare a Patentability Report. According to MPEP 705.01(a): ‘If the primary examiner in a reporting TC is of the opinion that a Patentability Report is not in order, he or she should so advise the primary examiner in the forwarding TC.’ This means that if the examiner believes…
Read MoreWhat is the procedure for examiners to request additional information from applicants?
The procedure for examiners to request additional information from applicants is outlined in 37 CFR 1.105 and MPEP § 704.10 et seq. These sections set forth procedures for examiners to require applicants, their attorneys, and agents to submit information reasonably necessary for the Office to examine an application or treat a matter being addressed in…
Read MoreWhat happens if examiners disagree on a Patentability Report?
When examiners disagree on a Patentability Report, MPEP 705.01(a) outlines the following process: The primary examiners may consult with each other to resolve the disagreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the primary examiner with jurisdiction over the application can choose not to rely on the Patentability Report. In such cases, the examiner may ‘make his…
Read MoreWhat evidence is needed to prove commercial success in patent applications?
To prove commercial success as evidence of non-obviousness in patent applications, applicants must provide substantial and credible evidence. According to MPEP 716.03(a), the following types of evidence are typically required: Sales figures: Actual sales data for the product embodying the claimed invention Market share: Information on the product’s share of the relevant market Growth in…
Read MoreHow are disagreements on classification handled in Patentability Reports?
When there’s a disagreement on classification in relation to a Patentability Report, the MPEP provides a clear process: ‘Conflict of opinion as to classification may be referred to a classification dispute TC representative panel for decision.’ This means that if examiners from different Technology Centers disagree on how to classify an application, they can seek…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of avoiding ‘undue multiplication of references’ in patent examination?
The concept of avoiding ‘undue multiplication of references’ in patent examination is mentioned in MPEP 707.07(g). The MPEP states: “The examiner ordinarily should reject each claim on all valid grounds available, avoiding, however, undue multiplication of references.” This guideline is significant because it aims to balance thoroughness with efficiency in patent examination. It means that…
Read MoreHow are appeals handled when a Patentability Report is involved?
When an appeal is taken from the rejection of claims involving a Patentability Report, MPEP 705.01(a) states: ‘When an appeal is taken from the rejection of claims, all of which are examinable in the TC preparing a Patentability Report, the application should be transferred to said TC for the purpose of appeal.’ This means: The…
Read MoreWho signs a Patentability Report in the USPTO examination process?
According to MPEP § 705, a Patentability Report (P.R.) is signed by a specific individual in the examination process. The MPEP states: This report is known as a Patentability Report (P.R.) and is signed by the primary examiner in the reporting TC. This means that the primary examiner in the Technology Center (TC) that is…
Read MoreWhen is a Patentability Report used in the patent examination process?
A Patentability Report is used in specific circumstances during the patent examination process. According to MPEP § 705, it’s used: When an application is properly assigned to one Technology Center (TC) The application contains one or more claims classifiable in one or more other TCs These claims are not divisible from each other or from…
Read MoreWhat is piecemeal examination in patent law?
Piecemeal examination refers to the practice of examining a patent application in a fragmented or incomplete manner. According to MPEP 707.07(g), “Piecemeal examination should be avoided as much as possible.” This means that patent examiners should strive to provide a comprehensive examination of each claim, addressing all valid grounds for rejection in a single office…
Read More