How should examiners explain rejections in patent applications?
How should examiners explain rejections in patent applications? According to MPEP 706, examiners must provide clear explanations for rejections in patent applications. The MPEP states: The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply…
Read MoreWhat should be done if the comparison with prior art is not identical?
When the comparison between the claimed invention and the prior art reference is not identical, any deviations should be explained. According to MPEP 716.02(e): “Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required.”…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of ‘expected beneficial results’ in patent examination?
‘Expected beneficial results’ play a crucial role in patent examination. According to MPEP 716.02(c): ‘Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.’ This means that: If the results obtained by the invention are expected or predictable, they support a finding of obviousness. Such…
Read MoreAre there any exceptions to the standard reply periods for USPTO Office actions?
Are there any exceptions to the standard reply periods for USPTO Office actions? Yes, there are exceptions to the standard reply periods for USPTO Office actions. The MPEP 704.13 outlines several situations where different time periods may apply: “Shortened statutory periods are those so designated in Office actions. The time periods set forth on form…
Read MoreAre there exceptions to using the PTO-892 form for citing references?
Yes, there is an exception to using the PTO-892 form for citing references. The MPEP 707.05(d) states: “…unless applicant has listed the reference on a form PTO/SB/08 that has been initialed by the examiner.” This means that if the applicant has already listed the reference on a PTO/SB/08 form (Information Disclosure Statement) and the examiner…
Read MoreWhat are the exceptions to using a shortened statutory period in patent examinations?
There are specific situations where a shortened statutory period is not used in patent examinations. According to MPEP 710.02(b), these exceptions include: Actions on amendments submitted after final rejection (except when the amendment is fully responsive and could place the application in condition for allowance) Ex parte Quayle actions When the application is ready for…
Read MoreWhen does the practice of granting additional time for incomplete replies not apply?
The practice of granting additional time for incomplete replies does not apply in two specific situations: When there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete reply. When the application is subject to a final Office action. The MPEP clarifies: “This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate…
Read MoreAre there exceptions to comprehensive patent examination?
Yes, there are exceptions to comprehensive patent examination. MPEP 707.07(g) outlines specific situations where limiting examination to a particular issue may be appropriate: When an application is too informal for a complete action on the merits (See MPEP ยง 702.01) When there is an undue multiplicity of claims and no successful telephone request for election…
Read MoreHow many examples are needed to demonstrate superiority for nonobviousness in patents?
When it comes to demonstrating superiority to support nonobviousness in patent applications, there is no set number of examples required. According to MPEP 716.02(a): No set number of examples of superiority is required. This principle is illustrated by the case of In re Chupp, cited in the MPEP: Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound…
Read MoreWhat are examples of information that may be reasonably required during patent examination?
The MPEP provides several examples of information that may be reasonably required during patent examination under 37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(i)-(viii). Some of these examples include: Names and citations of relevant indexed journals or treatises Trade names of goods or services related to the claimed subject matter Citations and copies of advertising and promotional literature for goods…
Read More