Who can file a request for supplemental examination?

According to MPEP 2811, a request for supplemental examination must be filed by the owner(s) of the entire right, title, and interest in the patent. This requirement is specified in 37 CFR 1.601(a). The MPEP explains: “This is because the scope of a patent may be changed (e.g., by cancellation or amendment of the claims)…

Read More

How does the USPTO handle prior art submissions in languages other than English for reexamination?

When submitting prior art in languages other than English for reexamination, the USPTO has specific requirements. According to MPEP 2244: “If the prior art patents and printed publications are in a language other than English, any necessary translation should be included.“ This means that: Translations must be provided for non-English prior art The translation should…

Read More

Are copies of U.S. patents and patent application publications required in reexamination requests?

Generally, copies of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications are not required to be submitted with reexamination requests. The MPEP 2218 states: “The requirement for the submission of a copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon or referred to in the request, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510(b)(3), is waived to the extent…

Read More

Why is a terminal disclaimer required for petitions to excuse unintentional delay in international design applications?

A terminal disclaimer is required for petitions to excuse unintentional delay in international design applications to prevent the applicant from unfairly extending the patent term due to the delay. This requirement is specified in 37 CFR 1.1051(d). The MPEP explains: “Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.1051(d), any petition under 37 CFR 1.1051(a) must be accompanied by…

Read More

What is the role of “specific and substantial utility” in patent applications?

“Specific and substantial utility” is a crucial concept in patent law that determines the patentability of an invention. The MPEP 2107.01 states: “Courts have used the labels “practical utility,” “substantial utility,” or “specific utility” to refer to this aspect of the “useful invention” requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals…

Read More