When can an examiner make a rejection based on prosecution laches?
An examiner should exercise caution when considering a rejection based on prosecution laches. According to MPEP 2190: “An examiner should obtain approval from the TC Director before making a rejection on the grounds of prosecution history laches.” This requirement ensures that such rejections are made only in egregious cases of unreasonable and unexplained delay in…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle inherency rejections for compositions or products?
How does the USPTO handle inherency rejections for compositions or products? The USPTO has specific guidelines for handling inherency rejections for compositions or products. According to MPEP 2112: “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” For compositions or products, the MPEP…
Read MoreCan a “Use” claim be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b)?
Yes, a “Use” claim can be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both rejections. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “It is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both…
Read MoreHow does the Tarczy-Hornoch case relate to the “Mere Function of Machine” rule?
The Tarczy-Hornoch case is a significant legal precedent that established the “Mere Function of Machine” rule in patent law. According to MPEP 2173.05(v): “In re Tarczy-Hornoch, 397 F.2d 856, 158 USPQ 141 (CCPA 1968). The court in Tarczy-Hornoch held that a process claim, otherwise patentable, should not be rejected merely because the application of which…
Read MoreWhat is statutory double patenting?
Statutory double patenting is a rejection based on the requirement in 35 U.S.C. 101 that an inventor may obtain only one patent for the same invention. The MPEP explains: “35 U.S.C. 101 requires that whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only ONE patent therefor. Thus, it prevents two patents issuing on the…
Read MoreWhat special procedures are required for rejecting a claim based on a tentative abstract idea?
Rejecting a claim based on a tentative abstract idea requires special procedures and approval. The MPEP states: A rejection of a claim reciting a tentative abstract idea must be approved by the TC director (which approval will be indicated in the file record of the application) and must provide a justification for why such claim…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the critical date in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejections?
The critical date is a crucial concept in pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) rejections. It is defined as one year before the effective U.S. filing date of the patent application. The significance of the critical date lies in its role as a cutoff point for determining whether prior art can be used against a patent application.…
Read MoreWhat is the scope of prior art available under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)?
Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the entire disclosure of certain U.S. patents, patent application publications, or international application publications can be used as prior art against patent claims. As stated in the MPEP: “Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), the entire disclosure of a U.S. patent, a U.S. patent application publication, or an international application publication…
Read MoreWhat is the role of scientific theory in patent rejections?
Scientific theory can play a significant role in patent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. As stated in MPEP 2144.02: “The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle.” This means that patent examiners can use established scientific theories and principles as part of their reasoning to…
Read MoreHow can an applicant respond to a patent-eligible subject matter rejection?
According to MPEP 2106.07(b), an applicant can respond to a rejection based on failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter in three main ways: Amend the claim to add additional elements or modify existing elements Present persuasive arguments based on a good faith belief as to why the rejection is in error Submit evidence traversing the…
Read More