How does the USPTO handle multiple items of information in a supplemental examination request?
The USPTO handles multiple items of information in a supplemental examination request by addressing each item individually. According to MPEP 2816.03: “The determination should separately address each issue that is raised by an item of information.” This means that for each item of information submitted, the examiner must: Identify the item Identify any issues raised…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle claims that involve both abstract and non-abstract elements?
When claims involve both abstract and non-abstract elements, the USPTO follows these guidelines: Identify abstract ideas: Examiners first identify any abstract ideas within the claim. Evaluate additional elements: They then assess whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle minor defects in a supplemental examination request?
The USPTO has a specific approach to handling minor defects in supplemental examination requests. According to MPEP 2812.01: “Even if the request is determined to be defective, the Office has the discretion under 37 CFR 1.610(d) to grant a filing date. However, the Office will not generally grant a filing date to a defective request…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle minor defects in a corrected request for supplemental examination?
The USPTO has discretion in handling minor defects in corrected requests for supplemental examination. According to the MPEP, “If the Office determines that a corrected request only contains one or more defects of minor character, the Office may, in its sole discretion, enter the defective corrected request, correct the defect(s) sua sponte, and/or request a…
Read MoreHow are merged reexamination proceedings handled by the USPTO?
When reexamination proceedings are merged, the USPTO follows specific guidelines to ensure efficient handling: A single combined examiner’s action is prepared for all merged proceedings. Each action contains the control numbers of all involved proceedings on every page. A single action cover mailing sheet is used for all parties involved. The patent owner is required…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle lengthy Sequence Listings in patent publications?
The USPTO has a specific process for handling lengthy Sequence Listings in patent publications. According to MPEP 2419.02: “In place of such lengthy “Sequence Listing”, the patent or patent application publication specification will show a page-wide SEQUENCE LISTING statement similar to the example shown below:” The statement includes information about accessing the Sequence Listing electronically…
Read MoreWhat happens to Sequence Listing XML files that exceed the 600KB limit?
While MPEP 2419.01 does not explicitly state what happens to Sequence Listing XML files that exceed the 600KB limit when transformed into ASCII text, it implies that these larger files are treated differently: “Upon transformation of the .xml file using the style sheet to an ASCII text file, any ASCII text file produced by the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle applications not under secrecy orders that interfere with applications under secrecy orders?
The USPTO has a specific procedure for handling applications not under secrecy orders that interfere with applications under secrecy orders. According to MPEP 2306: “If an application not under a secrecy order has allowable claims that interfere with allowable claims of an application that is under a secrecy order, then the application that is not…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle “incredible” or “wholly inoperative” inventions?
The USPTO treats “incredible” or “wholly inoperative” inventions as lacking utility under 35 U.S.C. 101. According to MPEP 2107.01: “An invention that is ‘inoperative’ (i.e., it does not operate to produce the results claimed by the patent applicant) is not a ‘useful’ invention in the meaning of the patent law.” However, the MPEP clarifies that…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application?
The USPTO has several mechanisms to address situations where an incorrect inventor is named in a patent application. According to MPEP 2157: Derivation proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 135 Correction of inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 115 The MPEP states: “A situation in which an application names a…
Read More