What technical information can a patent examiner request during examination?
What technical information can a patent examiner request during examination? During the examination process, a patent examiner can request various types of technical information to better understand the invention. According to MPEP 704.11, this may include: Technical explanations or theories of operation Specific technical characteristics of the invention Experimental data or test results Computer programs…
Read MoreWhat types of technical information can an examiner request during patent examination?
An examiner can request various types of technical information during patent examination, as outlined in MPEP 704.11(a). Some examples include: Technical explanations of the invention Details of how the invention is made or used Specific utilities of the invention Best mode of carrying out the invention Copies of any non-patent literature relied upon The MPEP…
Read MoreWhat technical information can examiners request about the invention?
What technical information can examiners request about the invention? Examiners can request a wide range of technical information about the invention. According to MPEP 704.11, this may include: ‘Technical information known to applicant concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of synergism in demonstrating unexpected results for patents?
Synergism can be a powerful way to demonstrate unexpected results in patent applications, potentially supporting nonobviousness. According to MPEP 716.02(a): Evidence of a greater than expected result may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects taken separately (i.e., demonstrating “synergism”). However, it’s crucial to…
Read MoreWhat is a suspension of action in patent examination?
A suspension of action is a temporary halt in the examination process of a patent application. According to MPEP 709, “Suspension of action (37 CFR 1.103) should not be confused with extension of time for reply (37 CFR 1.136). It is to be noted that a suspension of action applies to an impending Office action…
Read MoreHow are supplemental replies treated when received after a Notice of Allowance?
Supplemental replies received after a Notice of Allowance are generally not approved for entry. The MPEP clarifies: “If the amendment is a supplemental reply filed when action is not suspended, such an amendment will not be approved for entry because supplemental replies are not entered as matter of right.” This is in accordance with 37…
Read MoreHow are supplemental amendments filed after a final Office action treated?
Supplemental amendments filed after a final Office action are treated differently from those filed before final rejection. According to MPEP 714.03(a): ‘Amendments filed after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116. […] Amendments after final are not entered as a matter of right. […] If the examiner denies entry of a supplemental amendment after…
Read MoreWhat is a supplemental amendment in patent prosecution?
A supplemental amendment is an additional reply filed after an initial response to an Office action. According to MPEP 714.03(a), supplemental replies are not entered as a matter of right, except in specific circumstances. The MPEP states: ‘Supplemental replies will not be entered as a matter of right, except when a supplemental reply is filed…
Read MoreWhat is a supplemental action in patent examination?
A supplemental action is a follow-up action taken by a patent examiner when an amendment is filed on or before the mailing date of the regular action but reaches the Technology Center later. According to MPEP 714.05: “A supplemental action may be necessary when an amendment is filed on or before the mailing date of…
Read MoreCan superiority in a shared property rebut obviousness in patent applications?
Yes, superiority in a property shared with the prior art can be evidence of nonobviousness and help rebut a prima facie case of obviousness in patent applications. According to MPEP 716.02(a): Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties . . . can be enough to rebut a…
Read More