Can a double patenting rejection occur between a design patent and a utility patent?

Yes, a double patenting rejection can occur between a design patent and a utility patent. This is known as a design-utility “same invention” double patenting rejection. The MPEP states: A design – utility “same invention” double patenting rejection is based on judicial doctrine as there is no statutory basis for this rejection because neither 35…

Read More

What are the consequences of failing to show diligence in filing a reissue application?

Failing to show diligence in filing a reissue application can have serious consequences, potentially resulting in the rejection of the reissue application. The MPEP 1403 states: “If it is determined that there was a failure to exercise due diligence in filing the reissue application, the application should be rejected as a recapture of the subject…

Read More

How can I avoid a statutory double patenting rejection?

A statutory double patenting rejection can be avoided by: Amending the conflicting claims so that they are not coextensive in scope Canceling the conflicting claims in all pending applications (if the conflicting claims are in one or more pending applications and a patent) Canceling the conflicting claims in all but one of the pending applications…

Read More

What options does an applicant have when faced with a Form Paragraph 8.29 rejection?

When an applicant receives a rejection using Form Paragraph 8.29, they have two main options: Cancel patentably indistinct claims: The applicant can choose to cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application. This eliminates redundancy and streamlines the examination process. Maintain a clear line of demarcation: The applicant can choose to keep the…

Read More

Can a rejected design patent application be amended to remove offensive content?

While the MPEP 1504.01(e) does not specifically address amending rejected design patent applications to remove offensive content, general patent prosecution principles suggest that it may be possible in some cases. However, there are important considerations: Statutory Basis: The rejection is based on 35 U.S.C. 171, which defines the statutory requirements for design patents. New Matter:…

Read More

What are common reasons for an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to be considered insufficient?

The MPEP outlines several reasons why an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 might be considered insufficient to overcome a rejection: Lack of relevance: It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the…

Read More