What are considered derogatory remarks in a patent specification?
According to MPEP 608.01(r), derogatory remarks in a patent specification are: “statements disparaging the products or processes of any particular person other than the applicant, or statements as to the merits or validity of applications or patents of another person.” This means you should avoid criticizing specific inventions, products, or patents of others in your…
Read MoreWhat information should be included in the Description of the Related Art section?
The Description of the Related Art section should include: A description of the state of the prior art or other information known to the applicant. References to specific prior art or other information where appropriate. Information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or…
Read MoreHow can I discuss prior art in my patent application without being derogatory?
When discussing prior art in your patent application, you should focus on objectively describing the state of the art and how your invention improves upon it. The MPEP 608.01(r) provides guidance: “The applicant may refer to the general state of the art and the advance thereover made by his or her invention” Additionally, the MPEP…
Read MoreHow does the filing date of new matter in a CIP application affect patent rights?
How does the filing date of new matter in a CIP application affect patent rights? n The filing date of new matter in a continuation-in-part (CIP) application significantly affects patent rights. According to MPEP 201.08: n “Matter disclosed in the parent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent application.…
Read MoreHow does a CPA affect patent term and prior art dates?
Filing a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) can have important implications for both patent term and prior art dates: Patent Term: A CPA is a continuation of the prior application, so it does not get a new 15-year term from filing The 15-year term for a design patent issuing from a CPA is measured from the…
Read MoreCan I delete a benefit claim, and what are the implications?
Yes, you can delete a benefit claim, but it’s important to understand the process and potential implications: For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, you can delete a benefit claim by filing a corrected Application Data Sheet (ADS) that removes the reference to the prior-filed application. For applications filed before September 16, 2012,…
Read MoreHow does claiming the benefit of an international design application affect the effective filing date?
Claiming the benefit of an international design application under 35 U.S.C. 386(c) can potentially establish an earlier effective filing date for a nonprovisional application. This is significant because the effective filing date is used to determine which prior art is applicable during examination. As stated in the MPEP: “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 386(c), in accordance…
Read MoreWhat is the significance of the effective filing date in patent applications?
What is the significance of the effective filing date in patent applications? The effective filing date is a crucial concept in patent law that determines which prior art can be used against a patent application. According to MPEP 2152: The effective filing date of a claimed invention is used to determine what qualifies as prior…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO define ‘material information’ in patent applications?
How does the USPTO define ‘material information’ in patent applications? The USPTO considers information to be material if it affects the patentability of an invention. According to MPEP 410: “Information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and (1) It…
Read MoreHow does new matter in a continuation-in-part affect prior art considerations?
How does new matter in a continuation-in-part affect prior art considerations? The introduction of new matter in a continuation-in-part (CIP) application significantly affects prior art considerations. According to the MPEP 201.08: Only the claims of the continuation-in-part application that are disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the prior-filed application are entitled…
Read More