How can an applicant rebut a rejection based on lack of utility?

When a patent application is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility, along with a corresponding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut the examiner’s prima facie showing. The MPEP provides guidance on how an applicant can respond:

“There is no predetermined amount or character of evidence that must be provided by an applicant to support an asserted utility. Rather, the character and amount of evidence needed to support an asserted utility will vary depending on what is claimed, and whether the asserted utility appears to contravene established scientific principles and beliefs.”

The MPEP further clarifies the standard of proof required:

“Furthermore, the applicant does not have to provide evidence sufficient to establish that an asserted utility is true ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Instead, evidence will be sufficient if, considered as a whole, it leads a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the asserted utility is more likely than not true.”

This means that applicants should provide evidence tailored to their specific invention and its claimed utility, with the goal of convincing a person skilled in the art that the utility is more likely true than not.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2100 - Patentability, MPEP 2164.07 - Relationship Of Enablement Requirement To Utility Requirement Of 35 U.S.C. 101, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Lack Of Utility, Patent Rejection, Rebuttal Evidence