How are “nature-based products” defined in patent examination?
Nature-based products are a key concept in patent examination, particularly when considering the “product of nature” exception. According to MPEP 2106.04(c): “Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify “product of nature” exceptions.” This…
Read MoreWhat does “names another inventor” mean in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)?
The phrase “names another inventor” in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) refers to the requirement that for a U.S. patent document to qualify as prior art, there must be a difference in inventive entity between the prior art document and the application under examination or patent under reexamination. As stated in MPEP 2154.01(c): “This means that…
Read MoreWhat happens if an international design application contains more than one independent and distinct design?
If an international design application contains more than one independent and distinct design, the examiner will issue a notification of refusal or other Office action requiring the applicant to elect one independent and distinct design for prosecution. According to MPEP 2920.05(b): “If more than one independent and distinct design is claimed in the nonprovisional international…
Read MoreWhat should I know about multiple copending reexamination proceedings?
The MPEP 2241 mentions multiple copending reexamination proceedings and directs readers to additional resources for more information: “See the last portion of MPEP § 2240 and also see MPEP § 2283 for multiple copending reexamination proceedings.” This reference indicates that there are specific procedures and considerations when dealing with multiple reexamination proceedings for the same…
Read MoreWhere can I find detailed information on correcting inventorship in reexamination proceedings?
For detailed information on correcting inventorship in both inter partes and ex parte reexamination proceedings, you should refer to MPEP § 2250.02. The MPEP § 2666.03 specifically directs readers to this section: “See MPEP § 2250.02 for the manner of correcting inventorship in both inter partes and ex parte reexamination proceedings.” MPEP § 2250.02 provides…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP define “utility” in the context of prior art?
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2122 defines utility in the context of prior art as follows: “Utility need not be disclosed in a reference to be properly applied as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” This means that for a prior art reference to be valid, it doesn’t necessarily need to…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP define “reasonably pertinent” in the context of analogous art?
How does the MPEP define “reasonably pertinent” in the context of analogous art? The MPEP provides guidance on determining whether a reference is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem faced by the inventor. According to MPEP 2141.01(a): “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address chemical composition claims?
How does the MPEP address chemical composition claims? The MPEP addresses chemical composition claims in MPEP 2112.01, stating: “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” This principle is crucial for chemical composition claims. It means that if two products have the same chemical makeup, they must inherently possess the same properties.…
Read MoreWhat is the scope of MPEP Chapter 2300 regarding derivation proceedings?
MPEP Chapter 2300 provides information on interference and derivation proceedings, but it’s important to note its limitations regarding actions at the Board during derivation proceedings. According to MPEP 2314: “Action at the Board during a derivation proceeding is beyond the scope of this Chapter.” This means that while MPEP Chapter 2300 covers various aspects of…
Read MoreHow does the MPEP address changes in size, proportion, or shape in patent applications?
How does the MPEP address changes in size, proportion, or shape in patent applications? The MPEP addresses changes in size, proportion, or shape in MPEP 2144.04(IV). This section provides legal precedents for considering such changes as obvious variations. Specifically: Changes in Size/Proportion: “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a…
Read More