Why should examiners consider pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) even if a reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?

Examiners should consider pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) even if a reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) for two main reasons: Earlier prior art date: The MPEP states, if the reference is a U.S. patent or patent application publication of, or claims benefit of, an international application, the publication of the international application…

Read More

Why is it important for an applicant to provide adequate information when suggesting an interference?

Providing adequate information when suggesting an interference is crucial for several reasons. The MPEP 2304.02(a) emphasizes this importance: “The applicant should be motivated to help the examiner identify the application since inadequate information may prevent the declaration of the suggested interference.” Key reasons for providing adequate information include: Enabling the examiner to accurately identify the…

Read More

When should the structure implied by process steps be considered in product-by-process claims?

The structure implied by process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims in certain situations. MPEP 2113 states: “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps…

Read More

What is implicit disclosure in patent law?

Implicit disclosure in patent law refers to information that is not explicitly stated in a reference but can be reasonably inferred by a person skilled in the art. According to MPEP 2144.01, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also…

Read More

How does the USPTO determine if a Substantial New Question of Patentability is raised?

The USPTO determines if a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ) is raised by reviewing the items of information presented in the supplemental examination request. The examiner considers whether the information would be important to a reasonable examiner in determining patentability. According to the MPEP: For each item of information, the examiner need only identify…

Read More

How can an applicant express disagreement with a requirement to add a claim for interference?

While an applicant must comply with a requirement to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c), they can still express disagreement with the requirement. According to MPEP 2304.04(b), an applicant can express disagreement in several ways: Identifying a claim already in its application, or another of its applications, that provides a basis for the proposed…

Read More

How can an applicant challenge an examiner’s use of official notice?

How can an applicant challenge an examiner’s use of official notice? An applicant can challenge an examiner’s use of official notice by following these steps: Traverse the rejection: In the response to the Office action, explicitly traverse the examiner’s use of official notice. Request evidence: Demand that the examiner provide documentary evidence to support the…

Read More