How does the USPTO evaluate the credibility of affidavits or declarations?
How does the USPTO evaluate the credibility of affidavits or declarations? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) carefully evaluates the credibility of affidavits or declarations submitted as evidence in patent applications. The MPEP 716.01(c) provides guidance on this matter: In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in a 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration?
The USPTO evaluates the sufficiency of evidence in a 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. The evidence must show that the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor, or obtained directly or indirectly from them. According to MPEP 717.01(a)(1): The evidence necessary to show that the disclosure…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in Rule 131 affidavits?
How does the USPTO evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in Rule 131 affidavits? The USPTO evaluates the sufficiency of evidence in Rule 131 affidavits based on several factors. According to MPEP 715.07, “In determining the sufficiency of any affidavit or declaration, a general rule of thumb is that facts, rather than conclusions, constitute evidence.” This…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate expert skepticism in patent applications?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates expert skepticism in patent applications as part of its assessment of nonobviousness. According to the MPEP: Expressions of disbelief by experts constitute strong evidence of nonobviousness. (MPEP 716.05) When evaluating expert skepticism, patent examiners consider: The credibility and expertise of the skeptical experts The timing of…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the sufficiency of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b)?
The USPTO evaluates the sufficiency of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(b) by considering whether it establishes that the subject matter disclosed was publicly disclosed by the inventor, joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter from them, before the date of the disclosure being relied upon as prior art. MPEP 717.01(b)(1) states: “To…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in a 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration?
The USPTO evaluates the sufficiency of evidence in a 37 CFR 1.130(a) declaration on a case-by-case basis. According to MPEP 717.01(a): ‘The evidence necessary to show that the disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO process Information Disclosure Statements electronically?
The USPTO electronically processes Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted in patent applications. According to MPEP 609.08: The USPTO electronically processes the list of citations (e.g., form PTO/SB/08) submitted as part of an information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in applications stored by the Office in image form. This electronic processing allows for efficient handling and review…
Read MoreHow are papers electronically submitted to the USPTO handled in the Image File Wrapper?
How are papers electronically submitted to the USPTO handled in the Image File Wrapper? Papers electronically submitted to the USPTO are handled as follows in the Image File Wrapper: They are automatically entered into the Image File Wrapper. The system assigns each paper a unique document code. The paper is given an electronic receipt date.…
Read MoreWhen were public use proceedings discontinued by the USPTO?
Public use proceedings were discontinued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on September 16, 2012. The MPEP clearly states: Effective September 16, 2012, former 37 CFR. 1.292 authorizing petitions seeking institution of public use proceedings was removed from title 37. This change was part of broader reforms to the U.S. patent system…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate diligence in complex inventions?
The USPTO evaluates diligence in complex inventions by considering the nature of the invention and the circumstances surrounding its development. According to MPEP 715.07(a): ‘In determining the sufficiency of a 37 CFR 1.131(a) affidavit or declaration, diligence need not be considered unless conception of the invention prior to the effective date is clearly established, since…
Read More