What is the “substantial new question of patentability” criterion in patent reexamination?
The “substantial new question of patentability” (SNQ) is a key criterion for deciding whether to grant a request for patent reexamination. According to the MPEP, A prior art patent or printed publication raises a substantial question of patentability where there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider the prior art patent or…
Read MoreWhat is a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) in patent reexamination?
A substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) is a crucial concept in patent reexamination. According to MPEP 2242: “If the prior art patents and/or printed publications raise a substantial new question of patentability as to at least one claim of the patent, then a substantial new question of patentability as to the patent is present,…
Read MoreWhat is the ‘streamlined’ request option for ex parte reexamination?
The ‘streamlined’ request option for ex parte reexamination, introduced on January 16, 2018, allows for a reduced filing fee under certain conditions. According to the MPEP: “Requests for ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302 filed on or after January 16, 2018 may be filed with a reduced filing fee set forth in 37 CFR…
Read MoreWhat are the requirements for a “streamlined” ex parte reexamination request?
A “streamlined” ex parte reexamination request under 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1) must meet the following requirements: Have forty (40) or fewer pages Use double-spaced or one-and-a-half spaced lines Use a non-script type font such as Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier Use a font size no smaller than 12 point Have margins that conform to the…
Read MoreWhat are status reports in the context of patent reexamination, and why are they important?
Status reports in patent reexamination are weekly computer-generated reports that provide updates on the events and progress of reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2635: “Various weekly reports can be generated for the event reporting discussed above. The primary purpose of these computer outputs is to assure that reexaminations are, in fact, processed with ‘special dispatch’.”…
Read MoreWhat is an SNQ in patent reexamination?
SNQ stands for “Substantial New Question of patentability.” In the context of patent reexamination, an SNQ is a crucial factor in determining whether a reexamination request should be granted. The MPEP § 2255 mentions: “However, if a petition under 37 CFR 1.515(c) is granted after an examiner’s determination that found the request did not raise…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of “identical” claims in patent reexamination and intervening rights?
What is the significance of “identical” claims in patent reexamination and intervening rights? The concept of “identical” claims is crucial in determining whether intervening rights apply in patent reexamination. According to MPEP 2293: “A claim of the patent which is substantially identical to a claim of the original patent (for example, amended to improve clarity)…
Read MoreWhat is the process for reviving a terminated ex parte reexamination proceeding?
To revive a terminated ex parte reexamination proceeding, the patent owner must file a petition under 37 CFR 1.137. The petition must include: The required reply to the outstanding Office action or notice (if not previously filed) The petition fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(m) A statement that the entire delay was unintentional…
Read MoreIs it possible to revive a reexamination proceeding based on unavoidable delay?
No, it is no longer possible to revive a reexamination proceeding based on unavoidable delay. The MPEP clearly states: “37 CFR 1.137 was revised to implement the changes in the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA) to eliminate revival of an abandoned application and reexamination prosecution terminated under § 1.550(d) under the ‘unavoidable’…
Read MoreHow can an appellant respond to new grounds of rejection in an Examiner’s Answer?
When an Examiner’s Answer contains new grounds of rejection, the appellant has two options to respond within two months from the date of the Examiner’s Answer. According to MPEP § 2275, these options are: Reopen prosecution: The appellant can request that prosecution be reopened before the primary examiner by filing a reply under 37 CFR…
Read More