What is the relationship between a provisional election and a traversal in a restriction requirement response?
The relationship between a provisional election and a traversal in a restriction requirement response is critical. According to MPEP 818.01(a): “[T]he required provisional election (see MPEP § 818.01(b)) becomes an election without traverse if accompanied by an incomplete traversal of the requirement for restriction.” This means that when responding to a restriction requirement, an applicant…
Read MoreWhen might a provisional election of a single species be required in patent applications?
A provisional election of a single species may be required in certain patent applications, particularly when dealing with generic claims. According to MPEP 806.01: “However, a provisional election of a single species may be required where only generic claims are presented and the generic claims recite or encompass such a multiplicity of species that an…
Read MoreWhat constitutes a prohibited “sounding out” interview according to the MPEP?
According to MPEP 713.03, a prohibited “sounding out” interview is characterized by the following: The sole purpose is to gauge the examiner’s position or opinion Any agreement reached would be conditional upon approval by a principal attorney Often involves a local attorney acting on behalf of an out-of-town attorney The MPEP states: “Interviews that are…
Read MoreHow are product, process of making, and process of using inventions related in patent applications?
In patent applications, the relationship between product, process of making, and process of using inventions is complex and governed by specific rules for restriction requirements. MPEP 806.05(i) cites 37 CFR 1.141(b): Where claims to all three categories, product, process of making, and process of use, are included in a national application, a three way requirement…
Read MoreWhat is the distinction between a product and a process of using the product in patent law?
In patent law, a product and a process of using the product can be considered distinct inventions under certain conditions. According to MPEP 806.05(h), these inventions can be shown to be distinct if either: (A) the process of using as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product; or (B) the product as claimed…
Read MoreHow is a product claim defined by a process treated in patent examination?
A product claim defined by the process by which it is made is still considered a product claim in patent examination. This principle is based on the decision in In re Bridgeford, as cited in MPEP 806.05(f): “A product defined by the process by which it can be made is still a product claim (…
Read MoreWhat is the process for restricting between species in a patent application?
The process for restricting between species in a patent application is outlined in MPEP 809.02(a). According to MPEP 814: “The mode of indicating how to require restriction between species is set forth in MPEP § 809.02(a). The particular limitations in the claims and the reasons why such limitations are considered to support restriction of the…
Read MoreCan a process be practiced by hand in patent law?
Yes, in patent law, a process can be considered as being practiced by hand if it can be performed without using any apparatus. This concept is important in the context of restriction requirements between process and apparatus claims. According to MPEP § 806.05(e): “A process can be practiced by hand if it can be performed…
Read MoreWhat is the distinction between a process of making and a product made?
A process of making and a product made by the process can be shown to be distinct inventions if either or both of the following can be demonstrated: (A) The process as claimed is not an obvious process of making the product and can be used to make another materially different product, or (B) The…
Read MoreWhat is the process for incorporating new legal interpretations into USPTO policy?
The process for incorporating new legal interpretations into USPTO policy involves several steps and key officials. According to MPEP 1721: “It may be necessary for the Director, General Counsel, Solicitor, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, Commissioner for Patents, one or more Deputy Commissioners for Patents and TC Director making the recommendation to meet to review and…
Read More