How does the USPTO handle situations where the requirements for the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception are not fully met?

How does the USPTO handle situations where the requirements for the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception are not fully met?

When the requirements for invoking the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) exception are not fully met, the USPTO follows a specific procedure. According to MPEP 717.02(b):

“If the requirements have not been met, the examiner will treat the inquiry as a request for information under 37 CFR 1.105. This means that the examiner may request additional information from the applicant to properly evaluate the exception claim.”

The process typically involves the following steps:

1. The examiner identifies that the requirements for the exception have not been fully met.
2. Instead of outright rejecting the exception claim, the examiner treats it as a request for information under 37 CFR 1.105.
3. The examiner may issue a formal request for information, asking the applicant to provide additional details or clarification.
4. The applicant is given an opportunity to respond and provide the necessary information or correct any deficiencies in their exception claim.
5. Based on the applicant’s response, the examiner will then make a final determination on whether the exception applies.

This approach allows for a more flexible and cooperative process, giving applicants the chance to address any issues with their exception claim before a final decision is made.

To learn more:

• AIA
• prior art exception
• 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)
• USPTO procedure
• unmet requirements

To learn more:

• 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C)