What is the difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in relation to secondary considerations?
The key difference between 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in relation to secondary considerations lies in their applicability: 35 U.S.C. 102 (Novelty): Secondary considerations are not relevant and cannot overcome rejections based on this section. 35 U.S.C. 103 (Non-obviousness): Secondary considerations can be used to support non-obviousness arguments. MPEP 2131.04 states: “Evidence of…
Read MoreHow does the written opinion assess the patentability of an invention?
The written opinion, issued along with the international search report, provides a preliminary and non-binding assessment of the patentability of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 1843, the written opinion evaluates several key aspects: “The written opinion indicates whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and…
Read MoreWhat is the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority?
The Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority is a document established by an examiner alongside the international search report. It provides an assessment of the claimed invention’s novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. As stated in MPEP 1845: “The examiner is required, in most instances, to establish a written opinion on novelty, inventive step,…
Read MoreWhen is a further written opinion required in international preliminary examination?
A further written opinion is required in international preliminary examination under specific circumstances. According to the MPEP: However, a further written opinion must be prepared if applicant files a response which includes a persuasive argument that the written opinion issued by the International Searching Authority was improper because of a negative opinion with respect to…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP define “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation?
The MPEP provides guidance on what constitutes “substantially the same” in the context of design patent anticipation. According to MPEP 1504.02: The mandated overall comparison is a comparison taking into account significant differences between the two designs, not minor or trivial differences that necessarily exist between any two designs that are not exact copies of…
Read MoreWhat are the key statutory requirements for plant patent applications?
Plant patent applications must meet several key statutory requirements, as outlined in MPEP § 1608. The manual states: As such, the statutory provisions with regard to patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, obviousness, disclosure, and claim specificity requirements apply (35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112). These requirements include: Patentable Subject Matter: The plant must be…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of Box No. V in Form PCT/IPEA/408?
Box No. V in Form PCT/IPEA/408 is a crucial part of the written opinion of the International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA). According to the MPEP: In Box No. V, the examiner must list in summary form all claims with regard to the criteria of novelty (N), inventive step (IS), and industrial applicability (IA), and should…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of a patent search?
What is the purpose of a patent search? The primary purpose of a patent search is to determine the state of the prior art in a particular field of technology. According to MPEP 904.02, “The purpose of a search is to discover the most relevant prior art.” This involves: Identifying existing patents and published applications…
Read MoreWhat is the examination process for plant patent applications?
Plant patent applications undergo the same examination process as other national applications. The MPEP § 1608 states: Plant applications are subject to the same examination process as any other national application. This means that examiners assess plant patent applications for statutory requirements including: Patentable subject matter Utility Novelty Non-obviousness Disclosure Claim specificity These requirements are…
Read MoreHow does the Written Opinion address novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability?
The Written Opinion addresses novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability in Box No. V of Form PCT/ISA/237. The MPEP states: Examiner statements in Box No. V can be positive or negative. If the claims define over the prior art and meet the test of novelty, inventive step (nonobviousness) and industrial applicability, a positive statement equivalent…
Read More