What is the significance of corroborating evidence in Rule 131 affidavits?
What is the significance of corroborating evidence in Rule 131 affidavits? Corroborating evidence plays a crucial role in Rule 131 affidavits. The MPEP 715.07 states: “Each fact should be supported by documentary evidence, where possible, and explained by affidavit of the party having the best knowledge of the facts.” This means that while an inventor’s…
Read MoreWhen should patent examiners require correction of informalities in a patent application?
According to MPEP 707.07(e), patent examiners should require correction of all informalities as soon as allowable subject matter is found in a patent application. The section states: “As soon as allowable subject matter is found, correction of all informalities then present should be required.” This guideline ensures that once the substantive aspects of an application…
Read MoreHow does copying patent claims affect the application examination process?
Copying patent claims into an application can significantly impact the examination process, especially when there’s an existing unanswered rejection. The MPEP section 710.04(a) outlines the following effects: It creates two separate periods for reply The original claims maintain their existing statutory period The copied claims receive a new, limited period for reply This situation complicates…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of violating the ‘No Inter Partes Questions Discussed Ex Parte’ rule?
Violating the ‘No Inter Partes Questions Discussed Ex Parte’ rule, as stated in MPEP 713.06, can have serious consequences for both examiners and applicants: For examiners: Potential disciplinary action, including warnings, suspension, or termination. For applicants: Risk of invalidation of patents or adverse decisions in the examination process. For both: Damage to professional reputation and…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of not replying to a Requirement for Information?
What are the consequences of not replying to a Requirement for Information? Failing to reply to a Requirement for Information can have serious consequences for a patent application. According to MPEP 704.14(a): ‘The consequences of failure to reply are governed by 37 CFR 1.135.’ These consequences may include: The application being deemed abandoned Termination of…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of submitting a non-responsive patent amendment?
Submitting a non-responsive patent amendment can lead to delays in the examination process and potential abandonment of your application if not addressed promptly. According to MPEP 714.04: An amendment failing to point out the patentable novelty which the applicant believes the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of failing to file an appeal brief within the specified time period?
Failing to file an appeal brief within the specified time period can have serious consequences for a patent application. The MPEP states: The failure to file an appeal brief (or a new appeal brief) within the time period set in 37 CFR 41.37(a) (or (d)) results in dismissal of the appeal. The consequences of a…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a complete reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement?
A complete reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement involves responding to each enumerated request for information by either: Providing the required information, or Stating that the information is unknown and/or not readily available to the requested party or parties. As stated in MPEP 704.12(b): “A complete reply to a 37 CFR 1.105 requirement is…
Read MoreIs an applicant required to compare their invention with subject matter that doesn’t exist in the prior art?
No, an applicant is not required to compare their claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. The MPEP 716.02(e) clarifies this point: “Although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the claimed invention with subject matter…
Read MoreCan an applicant compare their invention with prior art that is closer than what the examiner cited?
Yes, applicants can compare their claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art relied upon by the examiner. This is explicitly stated in MPEP 716.02(e): “Applicants may compare the claimed invention with prior art that is more closely related to the invention than the prior art…
Read More