What is the significance of non-cumulative technological teachings in supplemental examination?

Non-cumulative technological teachings play a crucial role in supplemental examination, as outlined in MPEP 2816.02. Their significance lies in: Providing new information not previously considered during the original examination Potentially raising a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) Offering a fresh perspective on the patentability of the claims The MPEP states: “A substantial new question…

Read More

What is the scope of the USPTO’s determination in a supplemental examination request?

The scope of the USPTO’s determination in a supplemental examination request is generally limited to the specific items of information and claims identified in the request. According to MPEP 2816: “The determination of whether such an item of information raises a SNQ will generally be limited to a review of the item(s) of information identified…

Read More

How does the scope of issues considered in ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 257 differ from standard reexaminations?

The scope of issues considered in ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 257 is broader than in standard reexaminations. MPEP 2823 states: “issues in addition to those raised by patents and printed publications and by subject matter added or deleted during an ex parte reexamination proceeding may be considered and resolved, which differs from 37…

Read More

Who is responsible for determining if a supplemental examination request is compliant?

The responsibility for determining if a supplemental examination request is compliant lies with the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The MPEP states: If the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) determines that the request, as originally submitted, does not satisfy all of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.605, 1.610…

Read More

What information should be included in the notification of other post-patent proceedings?

The notification of other post-patent proceedings during supplemental examination should include specific information as outlined in MPEP 2820: The type of proceeding (e.g., ex parte or inter partes reexamination, reissue, supplemental examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, or covered business method patent review) An identifying number, such as a control number or reissue application number…

Read More

What regulations govern ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257?

Ex parte reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257 is generally governed by the same regulations as standard ex parte reexamination, with some specific exceptions. According to MPEP 2818.01: “Ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 257 will be conducted in accordance with 37 CFR 1.530 through 1.570, which govern ex parte reexamination, subject to the exceptions…

Read More

What happens to the reexamination fee if no SNQ is raised in supplemental examination?

If no Substantial New Question of patentability (SNQ) is raised during supplemental examination, the fee for reexamination is refunded. According to MPEP 2818: “The fee for reexamination ordered as a result of supplemental examination, as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(k)(2), will be refunded in accordance with 37 CFR 1.610(d).” This refund policy ensures that…

Read More

What is the “Reasons Document” in Supplemental Examination?

The “Reasons Document,” officially called the “Reasons for Substantial New Question of Patentability Determination,” is a document that accompanies the Supplemental Examination Certificate. It provides a detailed explanation of why each item of information submitted in a supplemental examination request does or does not raise a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). The MPEP states:…

Read More

Why are interviews prohibited in supplemental examination proceedings?

Interviews are prohibited in supplemental examination proceedings to ensure efficient processing within the statutory timeframe. The MPEP explains: “This requirement will assist the Office to process the request for supplemental examination within the three-month statutory period.” The prohibition on interviews helps streamline the supplemental examination process, allowing the USPTO to complete its review within the…

Read More