How does the USPTO define “invention” for claim analysis?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-27 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. The USPTO defines “invention” for claim analysis as follows: “The invention” is defined by the claims. The invention set forth in the claims must be presumed to be that which the applicant regards as his or her invention. This definition is found in MPEP 904.01 . It emphasizes that the claims themselves define the invention, and examiners must presume that the applicant’s claims accurately reflect their intended invention. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Claims Must Clearly Define Scope MPEP 904.01 Recommended Claims Must Be Given Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Consistent With Specification MPEP 904.01 Claims Given Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Consistent with Specification MPEP 904.01 Parent Applications Must Be Reviewed for Prior Art MPEP 904 Required Examiner Must Consider Prior Art from Parent Application MPEP 904 Required Review of Cited Prior Art from Parent Application Required MPEP 904 Recommended Examiner Must Review File Wrapper History and PTAB Post-Grant Proceedings MPEP 904 Required Documents Cited in International Search Report Must Be Considered MPEP 904 First Search Should Cover Invention as Claimed MPEP 904 Recommended Examiner’s First Office Action Relies on Initial Search References MPEP 904 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse How should examiners approach product-by-process claims? How should patent examiners approach broad and narrow claim interpretations? How should examiners interpret functional claim language? What is the significance of preambles in patent claim analysis? What role do the specification and drawings play in claim analysis according to MPEP 904.01?