Why does the USPTO use the broadest reasonable interpretation standard?
The USPTO uses the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during patent examination for several important reasons. According to MPEP 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.”…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO apply the “Mere Function of Machine” rule during patent examination?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies the “Mere Function of Machine” rule by not rejecting process or method claims solely because they describe the function of a disclosed machine. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(v): “Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f)?
The USPTO examines each claim limitation to determine if it invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (previously known as 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). According to MPEP 2173.01: “As part of the claim interpretation analysis, examiners should determine whether each limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph or not. If the claim…
Read MoreCan new terms be used in patent claims?
Yes, new terms can be used in patent claims. In fact, the MPEP recognizes that it’s often desirable to use new terms to describe and define new inventions more precisely. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(a): “Courts have recognized that it is not only permissible, but often desirable, to use new terms that are frequently more…
Read MoreHow can examiners use interviews to resolve indefiniteness issues?
Examiners are encouraged to use interviews as an effective tool to resolve indefiniteness issues. The MPEP provides guidance on this approach: “Issues of claim interpretation and clarity of scope may lend themselves to resolution through an examiner interview. For example, the examiner may initiate an interview to discuss, among other issues, the broadest reasonable interpretation…
Read MoreHow should examiners use abstracts in prior art rejections?
Examiners should be cautious when using abstracts for prior art rejections. The MPEP provides the following guidance: When both the abstract and the underlying document qualify as prior art, the underlying document should normally be used to support a rejection. When relying on an abstract, “the evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the…
Read MoreHow does the AIA use the term “disclosure” in 35 U.S.C. 102?
The AIA (America Invents Act) uses the term “disclosure” in specific contexts within 35 U.S.C. 102, particularly in relation to exceptions to prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of unsuccessful attempts to prepare a compound in prior art?
Unsuccessful attempts to prepare a compound disclosed in prior art can be significant in demonstrating that the prior art lacks an enabling disclosure. According to MPEP 2121.02: “When a prior art reference merely discloses the structure of the claimed compound, evidence showing that attempts to prepare that compound were unsuccessful before the relevant time will…
Read MoreWhat are “universal facts” in the context of MPEP 2124?
What are “universal facts” in the context of MPEP 2124? In the context of MPEP 2124, “universal facts” refer to information that is generally known or widely accepted in the field of the invention. These facts are considered to be so fundamental that they don’t require prior art status to be used in patent examination.…
Read MoreWhat is undue multiplicity in patent claims?
Undue multiplicity in patent claims refers to an unreasonable number of repetitious and multiplied claims that confuse rather than clarify the invention. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(n): “Where, in view of the nature and scope of applicant’s invention, applicant presents an unreasonable number of claims which are repetitious and multiplied, the net result of which…
Read More