How does the USPTO handle rejections based on lack of utility and enablement?
The USPTO handles rejections based on lack of utility (35 U.S.C. 101) and lack of enablement (35 U.S.C. 112(a)) separately to avoid confusion. The MPEP states: “To avoid confusion during examination, any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, based on grounds other than ‘lack of utility’ should be imposed…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle utility rejections for inventions with “throwaway” utilities?
The USPTO addresses “throwaway” utilities in patent applications as part of its examination process. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a lack of credible utility have been sustained by federal courts when, for example, the applicant failed to disclose any utility for the invention or asserted a utility that could…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims directed to a single means?
The USPTO treats claims directed to a single means with special consideration due to their potential lack of enablement. According to MPEP 2164.06(c): “A single means claim, i.e., where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle potential material fraud cases?
The USPTO does not have a dedicated unit for investigating material fraud. The process for handling potential material fraud cases is as follows: An employee (e.g., CRU examiner) becomes aware of potential material fraud. The employee notifies their supervisory official (e.g., CRU Director). If the supervisory official concurs, they refer the matter to the Deputy…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle protests involving fraud or inequitable conduct?
The USPTO has a specific approach to handling protests involving fraud or inequitable conduct. According to the MPEP, “This includes, of course, information indicating the presence of ‘fraud’ or ‘inequitable conduct’ or ‘violation of the duty of disclosure,’ which will be entered in the application file, generally without comment on the inequitable conduct issues raised…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle patent applications with missing essential information?
The USPTO handles patent applications with missing essential information by typically rejecting them under the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). If crucial information is missing, the application may not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. MPEP 2164.06(a) provides guidance on this issue: “A disclosure…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle partial changes in ownership recorded in the International Register?
The USPTO has specific rules regarding partial changes in ownership recorded in the International Register. According to MPEP 2930 and 37 CFR 1.1065(b): “A recording of a partial change in ownership in the International Register pursuant to Rule 21(7) concerning a transfer of less than all designs shall not have effect in the United States.”…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle lengthy Sequence Listings in patent publications?
The USPTO has a specific process for handling lengthy Sequence Listings in patent publications. According to MPEP 2419.02: “In place of such lengthy “Sequence Listing”, the patent or patent application publication specification will show a page-wide SEQUENCE LISTING statement similar to the example shown below:” The statement includes information about accessing the Sequence Listing electronically…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle duty of disclosure and inequitable conduct issues?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) generally does not handle duty of disclosure or inequitable conduct issues during the examination process. According to MPEP 2010, “It is the courts and not the Office that are in the best position to fashion an equitable remedy to fit the precise facts in those cases where…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle clerical or typographical errors in patent applications?
How does the USPTO handle clerical or typographical errors in patent applications? The USPTO recognizes that clerical or typographical errors can occur in patent applications. According to MPEP 2163.07: Where a clerical or typographical error in an application is not apparent from the record, amendment to correct such error may be permitted without any further…
Read More