What does “prolix” mean in patent claims?
In patent law, “prolix” refers to claims that are excessively wordy, lengthy, or contain unnecessary details that make it difficult to determine the scope of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2173.05(m), examiners may reject claims as prolix “when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is…
Read MoreWhat are maintenance fees for patents?
Maintenance fees are charges required to keep a patent in force after it has been granted. According to MPEP 2501, these fees are due at specific intervals after the patent grant: “Three years and 6 months after grant, $980.” “Seven years and 6 months after grant, $2,480.” “Eleven years and 6 months after grant, $4,110.”…
Read MoreWhat is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent claims?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is a key concept in patent eligibility analysis. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(d): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” The MPEP provides several ways an examiner can support such a conclusion: A citation to…
Read MoreWhat is considered “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in patent eligibility analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activity” is an important consideration in the patent eligibility analysis, specifically in Step 2B of the eligibility analysis. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), this refers to additional element(s) in a claim that are no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which are recited at a high level of…
Read MoreWhat role do “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play in Step 2B analysis?
“Well-understood, routine, conventional activities” play a crucial role in Step 2B analysis of patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(d): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Key points about well-understood, routine, conventional activities…
Read MoreDoes the specification need to disclose well-known information?
Generally, the specification does not need to disclose information that is well-known to those skilled in the art. MPEP 2164.05(a) states: “The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public.“ This principle is supported…
Read MoreWhat is a well-established utility in patent law?
A well-established utility in patent law is one that meets specific criteria as defined by the USPTO. According to the MPEP, An invention has a well-established utility if (i) a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention is useful based on the characteristics of the invention (e.g., properties or…
Read MoreWhat are the three ways an inter partes reexamination proceeding can be concluded?
According to MPEP 2694, inter partes reexamination proceedings can be concluded in three ways: (A) By bringing the prosecution to an end through denial, vacating, or termination of the reexamination proceeding. (B) By issuing a reexamination certificate under 37 CFR 1.997(b). (C) By merging the reexamination proceeding with a reissue proceeding and granting a reissue…
Read MoreWhat is the Wayback Machine® and how is it used in patent law?
The Wayback Machine® is a digital archive maintained by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organization. It’s used to view archived versions of websites as they existed at specific points in time. In patent law, the Wayback Machine® can be a valuable tool for establishing the public accessibility of online content on a specific date. According…
Read MoreHow does the “way” prong of the function-way-result test apply in a prima facie case of equivalence?
The “way” prong of the function-way-result test is a critical component in establishing a prima facie case of equivalence. MPEP 2183 provides guidance on this aspect: “The examiner must explain how the prior art element performs the claimed function in substantially the same way as the claimed invention.” To satisfy the “way” prong, the examiner…
Read More