How does the USPTO determine whether to institute a derivation proceeding?

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) follows specific criteria to determine whether to institute a derivation proceeding. According to MPEP 2310: “The petition, and any supplemental information filed, will be reviewed to determine whether they set forth a basis for instituting a derivation proceeding.“ The USPTO considers several factors, including: Whether the petition is…

Read More

How does the USPTO define ‘necessarily present’ in the context of inherency?

How does the USPTO define ‘necessarily present’ in the context of inherency? The concept of ‘necessarily present’ is crucial in understanding inherency in patent law. According to the MPEP 2112, a feature or characteristic is considered ‘necessarily present’ if it is an inevitable consequence of the prior art teachings, even if it was not explicitly…

Read More

How does the USPTO determine if a depository is acceptable?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has specific criteria for determining if a depository is acceptable for biological materials. According to MPEP 2405: “The Commissioner may determine that a depository is acceptable if the depository:” Maintains biological material viability for 30 years or 5 years after the most recent request, whichever is longer…

Read More

How does the USPTO handle copending reexamination and interference proceedings?

How does the USPTO handle copending reexamination and interference proceedings? The USPTO handles copending reexamination and interference proceedings as follows: The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction over an interference proceeding. The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) has jurisdiction over any reexamination proceeding. When both proceedings are copending, the BPAI’s jurisdiction over the…

Read More

Why does the USPTO use the broadest reasonable interpretation standard?

The USPTO uses the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard during patent examination for several important reasons. According to MPEP 2111: “Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.”…

Read More

How does the USPTO apply the “Mere Function of Machine” rule during patent examination?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies the “Mere Function of Machine” rule by not rejecting process or method claims solely because they describe the function of a disclosed machine. As stated in MPEP 2173.05(v): “Process or method claims are not subject to rejection by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiners under 35…

Read More

What additional requirements are there for international design applications designating the United States?

International design applications designating the United States must include additional elements as specified in 37 CFR 1.1021(d): A claim (37 CFR 1.1021(b)(1)(iii) and 37 CFR 1.1025) Indications concerning the identity of the creator (inventor) The inventor’s oath or declaration (37 CFR 1.63 and 1.64) The MPEP states: “A claim is a filing date requirement for…

Read More

What is the United States’ policy on deferment of publication for international design applications?

The United States does not allow deferment of publication for international design applications designating the U.S. This policy is based on a specific declaration made under the Hague Agreement. As stated in the MPEP, “Pursuant to Article 11(1)(b), the United States declared that where the United States is designated in an international design application, it…

Read More

What is the individual designation fee structure for international design applications designating the United States?

The United States has implemented a two-part individual designation fee structure for international design applications designating the U.S. under the Hague Agreement: 1. A first part payable at filing 2. A second part payable upon allowance of the application As stated in the MPEP, “Pursuant to Article 7(2) and Rule 12(3), the United States declared…

Read More

Can a U.S. applicant file an international design application directly with WIPO?

Can a U.S. applicant file an international design application directly with WIPO? No, a U.S. applicant cannot file an international design application directly with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). According to MPEP 2905, “Applicants from the United States are not permitted to file international design applications directly with the International Bureau.” U.S. applicants must…

Read More