When are amendments under 37 CFR 1.312 entered for applications in issue?
For applications in issue, amendments filed under 37 CFR 1.312 along with a motion under 37 CFR 41.208 are not immediately entered. MPEP 714.16(b) states: “Where an amendment filed with a motion under 37 CFR 41.208(c)(2) applies to an application in issue, the amendment is not entered unless and until the motion has been granted.”…
Read MoreWhat is a shortened statutory period in patent examination?
A shortened statutory period is a time limit set by the USPTO for applicants to respond to Office actions. According to MPEP 710.02(b), Under the authority given him or her by 35 U.S.C. 133, the Director of the USPTO has directed the examiner to set a shortened period for reply to every action. This period…
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 MoreWhat is a Patentability Report in patent examination?
A Patentability Report (P.R.) is a specialized examination process used by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when an application contains claims that require expertise from different Technology Centers (TCs). According to MPEP 705.01: “When an application comes up for any action and the primary examiners involved (i.e., from both the requesting and…
Read MoreWhat is a Patentability Report (P.R.) in patent examination?
A Patentability Report (P.R.) is a process in patent examination where an application is forwarded from one Technology Center (TC) to another for additional review. According to MPEP 705.01(c), The forwarding of the application for a Patentability Report is not to be treated as a transfer by the forwarding Technology Center (TC). This means that…
Read MoreHow are unexpected results weighed in patent examination?
In patent examination, unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness when determining the obviousness of a claimed invention. The MPEP states: “Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention.” (MPEP 716.02(c)) This means that…
Read MoreHow are unexpected results weighed against evidence of obviousness?
Unexpected results are weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness to determine the overall obviousness of the claimed invention. The MPEP states: Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. (MPEP 716.02(c)) The significance of the unexpected results…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO weigh objective evidence in patent examination?
The USPTO weighs objective evidence in patent examination by considering the entire record and balancing all evidence. As stated in MPEP 716.01(d): “The ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence.” This…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for using video conferencing for patent interviews?
Video conferencing for patent interviews must adhere to specific requirements as outlined in MPEP 713.01: All video conferences must originate or be hosted by USPTO personnel. Examiners cannot conduct interviews via video conferences hosted by applicants or third parties. The examiner assigned to the application should coordinate the video conference using USPTO web-based collaboration tools.…
Read MoreWhat is the policy on video conference interviews in patent examination?
What is the policy on video conference interviews in patent examination? The USPTO encourages the use of video conferencing tools for patent examination interviews. According to MPEP 713.01: ‘Video conference tools can be used to conduct interviews with applicants or their representatives.’ Video conferences offer several advantages: Increased flexibility in scheduling Reduced travel costs for…
Read More