What is the effective date for WIPO published applications to be considered prior art under AIA?
The effective date for WIPO published applications to be considered prior art under the AIA is linked to the implementation of the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions. The MPEP section begins with an important note: [Editor Note: This MPEP section is only applicable to applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file…
Read MoreWhen did the new requirements for “specifically defined” nucleotides and amino acids come into effect?
According to MPEP 2412.03(a), the new requirements for “specifically defined” nucleotides and amino acids came into effect for patent applications filed on or after July 1, 2022. The MPEP states: [Editor Note: This section is applicable to all applications filed on or after July 1, 2022, having disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences as…
Read MoreHow should coding regions be depicted in patent applications?
According to 37 CFR 1.822(c)(3), if an applicant chooses to depict coding regions, the amino acids corresponding to the codons in the coding parts of a nucleotide sequence must be listed immediately below the corresponding codons. The MPEP states: “If applicant chooses to depict coding regions, 37 CFR 1.822(c)(3) requires the amino acids corresponding to…
Read MoreWhat is the definition of “interfering subject matter” in patent law?
“Interfering subject matter” in patent law refers to claimed inventions or claimed subject matter that are not patentably distinct from each other. According to MPEP 2301.03, interfering subject matter is defined as follows: “Interfering subject matter” is defined as (A) those portions of an application claim that are patentably indistinct from the subject matter of…
Read MoreWhat are the current sequence rules for patent applications?
The current sequence rules for patent applications are outlined in 37 CFR 1.821-1.825 and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.25. These rules became effective on July 1, 1998. The MPEP states: The current sequence rules, which are embodied in 37 CFR 1.821-1.825 and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.25, became effective July 1,…
Read MoreWhat should I do if my Sequence Listing XML contains errors?
If your Sequence Listing XML contains errors, the USPTO will notify you through a PAIR document titled “Computer Readable Form (CRF) for Sequence Listing – Defective.” According to MPEP 2416, you must provide: A replacement “Sequence Listing XML” part of the disclosure A statement identifying the location of all additions, deletions, or replacements of sequence…
Read MoreHow is constructive reduction to practice defined in patent interferences?
Constructive reduction to practice is a key concept in patent interference proceedings. The MPEP 2301.02 provides the following definition: “Constructive reduction to practice means a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1), in a patent application of the subject matter of a count.” Furthermore, the MPEP introduces the concept of earliest constructive reduction to…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of failing to comply with the sequence rules in patent applications?
What are the consequences of failing to comply with the sequence rules in patent applications? Failing to comply with the sequence rules in patent applications can have serious consequences. According to MPEP 2412.01: “Applications that are not in compliance with the sequence rules will be treated in accordance with the pertinent sections of the MPEP.…
Read MoreWhat happens if a patent application filed after July 1, 2022, doesn’t include a Sequence Listing XML?
While MPEP 2415 doesn’t explicitly state the consequences, failing to include a required Sequence Listing XML in a patent application filed on or after July 1, 2022, would likely result in a notice of incomplete application from the USPTO. The applicant would then need to submit the Sequence Listing XML to complete the application. Failure…
Read MoreWhat happens if a replacement deposit is not made in a pending patent case?
If a replacement deposit is not made in a pending patent case where a deposit is considered necessary to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, the application or patent will be treated as if no deposit were made. As stated in MPEP 2407.03: “37 CFR 1.805(d) sets forth the Office position that the failure…
Read More