How does the USPTO treat replacement deposits?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies a rebuttable presumption of identity between the replacement deposit and the original deposit. This treatment is outlined in MPEP 2407.04, which states: “37 CFR 1.805(e) indicates that the Office will apply a rebuttable presumption of identity between the replacement deposit and an original deposit where a…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat prior art references that are not fully enabling?
How does the USPTO treat prior art references that are not fully enabling? The USPTO treats prior art references that are not fully enabling as potentially valid prior art, depending on the context. According to MPEP 2121: “A reference contains an ‘enabling disclosure’ if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat admissions under the AIA?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to treat admissions by applicants as prior art under the America Invents Act (AIA). This approach is consistent with pre-AIA practice. According to MPEP 2152.03: “The Office will continue to treat admissions by the applicant as prior art under the AIA.” This means that any statement…
Read MoreWhat is the Office policy regarding reexamination when there has been a federal court decision on the merits of a patent?
The Office policy regarding reexamination when there has been a federal court decision on the merits of a patent is outlined in MPEP § 2642 and MPEP § 2686.04. These sections provide guidance on how to handle requests for reexamination and the subsequent examination phase in such cases. According to MPEP § 2659, “Claims finally…
Read MoreWhat activities are included in USPTO reexamination time reporting?
The MPEP 2238 provides guidance on the range of activities that should be included in time reporting for reexaminations: “Even activities such as supervision, copying, typing, and docketing should be included.” This means that USPTO personnel should report time spent on both direct examination tasks and supporting activities related to reexamination proceedings. To learn more:…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO recommend rejecting an omnibus claim?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides specific guidance for rejecting omnibus claims. According to MPEP 2173.05(r): “Such a claim can be rejected using form paragraph 7.35. See MPEP § 2175.” Form paragraph 7.35 is a standardized template that patent examiners can use to reject omnibus claims. It typically cites the relevant statute…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a document is publicly accessible for patent purposes?
The USPTO determines public accessibility of a document for patent purposes based on several factors outlined in MPEP 2128.01. Key considerations include: The extent of dissemination The ease with which the document can be located The intended audience’s ability to find the document The MPEP provides guidance: “Whether a document is ‘publicly accessible’ is determined…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle prior art rejections when operability is questioned?
The USPTO handles prior art rejections where operability is questioned as follows: The examiner must provide a reasonable basis to question the operability of the prior art. If operability is questioned, the burden shifts to the applicant to provide rebuttal evidence. The prior art is presumed to be operable unless proven otherwise. As stated in…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO communicate defective papers in ex parte reexamination?
The USPTO uses specific forms to communicate defective papers in ex parte reexamination, depending on who requested the reexamination. According to MPEP 2296, there are two forms for this purpose: PTOL-475: Notice of Defective Paper In Ex Parte Reexamination – Third Party Requested PTO-2311: Notice of Defective Paper in Ex Parte Reexamination – Patent Owner…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle rejections based on lack of utility and enablement?
The USPTO handles rejections based on lack of utility (35 U.S.C. 101) and lack of enablement (35 U.S.C. 112(a)) separately to avoid confusion. The MPEP states: “To avoid confusion during examination, any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, based on grounds other than ‘lack of utility’ should be imposed…
Read More