When was inter partes reexamination replaced by inter partes review?
Inter partes reexamination was replaced by inter partes review on September 16, 2012, as a result of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The MPEP states: “Section 6(c) of the AIA replaced the inter partes reexamination process, effective September 16, 2012, with a new inter partes review process, such that on or after September 16,…
Read MoreWhen can a patent examiner use the streamlined eligibility analysis?
When can a patent examiner use the streamlined eligibility analysis? A patent examiner can use the streamlined eligibility analysis when a claim, viewed as a whole, clearly does not attempt to tie up a judicial exception. The MPEP 2106.06 states: “This analysis can be used for claims that may or may not recite a judicial…
Read MoreWhen can an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) be used?
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a), also known as an affidavit or declaration of attribution, can be used in two specific situations: To establish that a disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor. To establish that the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.…
Read MoreWhen should an interference be suggested during patent examination?
An interference should rarely be suggested until examination is completed on all other issues. According to MPEP 2303, “Each pending claim must be allowed, finally rejected, or canceled. Any appeal from a final rejection must be completed, including any judicial review. Any petition must be decided.” This means that examiners should resolve all other patentability…
Read MoreWhen can prior art be submitted under 37 CFR 1.501(a)?
Prior art can be submitted under 37 CFR 1.501(a) at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent. The MPEP explicitly states: 37 CFR 1.501(a) permits any person at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent to file a written submission. The period of enforceability typically includes: The entire term…
Read MoreWhen should the markedly different characteristics analysis be performed?
The markedly different characteristics analysis should be performed when evaluating nature-based product limitations in a claim. However, it’s important to note that not all claims containing nature-based products require this analysis. According to the MPEP, “Examiners should keep in mind that if the nature-based product limitation is naturally occurring, there is no need to perform…
Read MoreWhen is it appropriate to include sequences in patent drawings?
While sequences should generally be included in the Sequence Listing XML rather than duplicated in drawings, there are several situations where including sequences in patent drawings may be appropriate or necessary. According to MPEP 2412.06: “Many significant sequence characteristics may only be demonstrated by a figure. This is especially true in view of the fact…
Read MoreWhen should a request for interim extension be filed?
According to 37 CFR 1.760, as cited in MPEP 2755.01: “Any such request should be filed at least three months prior to the expiration date of the patent.“ However, the MPEP clarifies that this time frame is not mandatory: “While 37 CFR 1.760 provides that a request for an interim extension by the applicant ‘should’…
Read MoreWhen should information be disclosed to the USPTO during patent prosecution?
Information should be submitted promptly to the USPTO during patent prosecution. The MPEP states: An applicant, attorney, or agent who is aware of material prior art or other information and its significance should submit the information as early as possible in prosecution, e.g., before the first Office action, and not wait until after allowance. However,…
Read MoreWhat is an Interference Practice Specialist (IPS) and when should an examiner consult one?
An Interference Practice Specialist (IPS) is an expert in each Technology Center (TC) who must be consulted when suggesting an interference to the Board. Examiners should consult an IPS when they first become aware of a potential interference or when any interference issue arises during prosecution of an application. According to the MPEP, Examiners are…
Read More