How does the effective filing date affect the application of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102?
The effective filing date of a claimed invention is crucial in determining whether to apply pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102. MPEP 2139.02 states: “If the application is subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, examiners should continue to apply 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or (e) in the alternative, indicating that either pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b), or…
Read MoreHow does the effective filing date affect the application of AIA provisions?
The effective filing date plays a crucial role in determining whether the AIA (America Invents Act) provisions or pre-AIA laws apply to a patent application. According to MPEP 2159: “Because the changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the AIA apply only to specific applications filed on or after March 16, 2013,…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the effective filing date in AIA 35 U.S.C. 103?
The effective filing date plays a crucial role in determining the applicable version of 35 U.S.C. 103 and the scope of prior art for obviousness rejections. According to MPEP 2158: “The changes to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 in the AIA do not apply to any application filed before March 16, 2013. Thus, any application…
Read MoreWhat is the difference between the duty to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56 and the requirements for information under 37 CFR 1.105?
The main differences are: Under 37 CFR 1.56, individuals associated with a patent application have a duty to disclose information material to patentability on their own initiative. Under 37 CFR 1.105, examiners can require information reasonably necessary for examination from parties identified in 37 CFR 1.56. The materiality threshold for 37 CFR 1.56 is higher…
Read MoreWhat is the duty of disclosure regarding copending United States patent applications?
Individuals covered by 37 CFR 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner information about other copending United States applications that are “material to patentability” of the application in question. This includes: Providing identification of pending or abandoned applications filed by at least one of the inventors Applications assigned to the…
Read MoreHow does double inclusion affect device claims in patents?
Double inclusion in device claims can potentially lead to indefiniteness issues. The MPEP 2173.05(o) provides specific guidance on this matter: “On the other hand, where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” The MPEP cites the case of Ex parte Kristensen to…
Read MoreWhat documents are considered prior to examination in ex parte reexamination?
According to MPEP 2252, only specific documents are considered prior to examination in ex parte reexamination. The MPEP states: “No submissions other than the statement pursuant to § 1.530 and the reply by the ex parte reexamination requester pursuant to § 1.535 will be considered prior to examination.” This means that only the patent owner’s…
Read MoreHow are documents submitted by parties considered in reexamination?
In reexamination proceedings, the consideration given to documents submitted by parties (patent owner or requester) is typically limited by how well the submitting party has explained the content and relevance of those documents. According to MPEP 2656: “Where patents, publications, and other such documents are submitted by a party (patent owner or requester) in compliance…
Read MoreHow does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence?
How does the doctrine of equivalents relate to making a prima facie case of equivalence? The doctrine of equivalents and making a prima facie case of equivalence are related concepts in patent law, but they apply in different contexts. The MPEP clarifies this relationship: “The determination of equivalence for purposes of the nonstatutory (obviousness-type) double…
Read MoreHow does the doctrine of equivalents affect patent examination?
While the doctrine of equivalents is primarily relevant to infringement actions, it can have implications for patent examination. MPEP 2186 provides guidance on this matter: “Accordingly, decisions involving the doctrine of equivalents should be considered, but should not unduly influence a determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, during ex…
Read More