How does the USPTO handle additional information submitted by applicants in response to examiner requests?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling additional information submitted by applicants in response to examiner requests. According to MPEP 707.05(b), “Information submitted by applicant in the manner provided in MPEP § 704.10 et seq. will not be supplied with an Office action.” This means that while the examiner will consider the submitted information during…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle prior art submitted by applicants?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling prior art submitted by applicants. According to MPEP 707.05(b), “Prior art submitted by applicant in the manner provided in MPEP § 609 will not be supplied with an Office action.” This means that while the examiner will consider the submitted prior art during the examination process, they will…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle amendments that are not fully responsive?
How does the USPTO handle amendments that are not fully responsive? The USPTO has a specific procedure for handling amendments that are not fully responsive to a previous Office action. According to MPEP 714.03: “If a timely reply is received in the Office which fails to be a complete response to the prior Office action…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle amendments received after the period for reply has expired?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling amendments received after the period for reply has expired. According to MPEP 714.17: An amendment filed after the expiration of the statutory period for reply to an Office action cannot be entered. The examiner will typically: Not enter the amendment into the application Notify the applicant that the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle conflicting affidavits or declarations in patent applications?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling conflicting affidavits or declarations in patent applications. According to MPEP 716: ‘Where the examiner has specific knowledge of the existence of a particular reference or references which indicate nonpatentability of the applicant’s claims, he or she may use his or her knowledge in rejecting the claims without citing…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle amendments after final rejection in relation to statutory periods?
The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling amendments after final rejection in relation to statutory periods. According to MPEP 710.02(b): A shortened statutory period may be used in replying to any statutory or non-statutory Office action EXCEPT: … (B) When the application is not being allowed or when the application has not been allowed and…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle actions by different examiners on the same application?
The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling actions by different examiners on the same patent application. According to MPEP 706.04: “Full faith and credit should be given to the search and action of a previous examiner unless there is a clear error in the previous action or knowledge of other prior art.” This means that:…
Read MoreWhat is the File Ordering System (FOS) and how is it used?
The File Ordering System (FOS) is a system used by patent examiners to order patented and abandoned paper files or artifact folders. MPEP 711.04(b) states: “To place such an order, the system requires a delivery organization (i.e. the examiner’s art unit), employee number, and patent number(s) and/or application number(s) of the file(s) that are needed.”…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate unexpected results for a genus claim?
The USPTO evaluates unexpected results for a genus claim by considering whether the evidence presented is representative of the entire claimed genus. The MPEP 716.02(d) provides guidance: The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate ‘synergistic effects’ as evidence of unexpected results?
How does the USPTO evaluate ‘synergistic effects’ as evidence of unexpected results? The USPTO considers synergistic effects as a potential form of unexpected results, which can be used to support patentability. According to MPEP 716.02(a)(I): “Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the…
Read More