How does the USPTO determine if a claim limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses specific criteria to determine if a claim limitation constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), examiners consider the following factors: Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known Whether the limitation is significant (i.e., it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not…

Read More

How does the USPTO determine if a claim is too broad?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses several criteria to determine if a claim is too broad. According to MPEP 2173.04, the assessment depends on the specific issues with the claim: Inventor’s Regard: If the claim is broader than what the inventor regards as the invention, it may be rejected under 35 U.S.C.…

Read More

How does the USPTO determine if a biological material is known and readily available?

The USPTO determines if a biological material is known and readily available based on several factors: Public availability of the material Ability to reproduce the material from the written description Accessibility without undue experimentation MPEP 2404 states: “The USPTO will accept commercial availability as evidence that a biological material is known and readily available only…

Read More

How does the USPTO explain the basis for each determination in supplemental examination?

The USPTO explains the basis for each determination in supplemental examination by providing a clear rationale for the findings. According to MPEP 2816.03: “The determination should explain the basis for the determination of each issue with respect to each item of information. For example, the determination should explain why each item of information does or…

Read More

How does the USPTO distinguish between improvements to computer functionality and mere automation of manual processes?

The USPTO distinguishes between improvements to computer functionality and mere automation of manual processes by examining the technical nature of the improvement. According to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1): “[I]f the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a…

Read More