How does the USPTO ensure uniformity in reexamination practices?
The USPTO ensures uniformity in reexamination practices through a multi-layered review process. According to MPEP § 2289, this includes: Monitoring and reviewing all reexamination cases by CRU SPRS or TC QAS Conducting panel reviews before issuing Office actions Providing feedback to Office personnel The MPEP states: “The above identified review processes are appropriate vehicles for…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat replacement deposits?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) applies a rebuttable presumption of identity between the replacement deposit and the original deposit. This treatment is outlined in MPEP 2407.04, which states: “37 CFR 1.805(e) indicates that the Office will apply a rebuttable presumption of identity between the replacement deposit and an original deposit where a…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat prior art references that are not fully enabling?
How does the USPTO treat prior art references that are not fully enabling? The USPTO treats prior art references that are not fully enabling as potentially valid prior art, depending on the context. According to MPEP 2121: “A reference contains an ‘enabling disclosure’ if the public was in possession of the claimed invention before the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat disclosures with additional authors or inventors?
The USPTO’s treatment of disclosures with additional authors or inventors depends on how they relate to the named inventors in the patent application. According to MPEP 2153.01(a): 1. When the application names more inventors than the disclosure: “This means that in circumstances where an application names additional persons as joint inventors relative to the persons…
Read MoreWhat is the difference in USPTO treatment of defective sequence listings for applications filed before and after January 1, 2022?
The USPTO’s treatment of defective sequence listings differs significantly for applications filed before and after January 1, 2022. MPEP 2422.07 outlines these differences: For applications filed before January 1, 2022: “Applications filed before January 1, 2022, that are otherwise complete, but that contain defective sequence listings, will be treated as incomplete applications under 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO treat admissions under the AIA?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to treat admissions by applicants as prior art under the America Invents Act (AIA). This approach is consistent with pre-AIA practice. According to MPEP 2152.03: “The Office will continue to treat admissions by the applicant as prior art under the AIA.” This means that any statement…
Read MoreWhat is the timeframe for the USPTO to decide on a supplemental examination request?
According to MPEP 2815, the USPTO has a specific timeframe to decide on a supplemental examination request. The manual states: “Within three months after the filing date of a request for supplemental examination, the Office will determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by any of…
Read MoreWhat is the time frame for the USPTO to issue a supplemental examination certificate?
The USPTO has a specific time frame for issuing a supplemental examination certificate. According to MPEP 2816: “The Office will issue a supplemental examination certificate within three months of the filing date of the request.” This three-month period is statutorily mandated by 35 U.S.C. 257(a). The certificate will indicate whether the items of information presented…
Read MoreCan the USPTO make telephone calls during inter partes reexamination proceedings?
The USPTO may, in its sole discretion, make limited telephone calls during inter partes reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2685, “The Office may, in its sole discretion, telephone a party as to matters of completing or correcting the record of a file, where the subject matter discussed does not go to the merits of the…
Read MoreCan the USPTO suspend an inter partes reexamination due to ongoing litigation?
Yes, the USPTO can suspend an inter partes reexamination due to ongoing litigation, but this is rare. The key points are: The Director has authority to suspend for “good cause” under 35 U.S.C. 314(c). Suspension is considered on a case-by-case basis. The potential for termination under 35 U.S.C. 317(b) may provide “good cause” for suspension.…
Read More