How 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 MoreHow does the USPTO handle incomplete requests for inter partes reexamination?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling incomplete requests for inter partes reexamination: The request is reviewed for completeness. If found incomplete, a notice is sent to the requester. The requester is given time to complete the request. According to MPEP 2626: “If the request for inter partes reexamination is incomplete… the person identified as…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle inadvertent omissions in a patent owner’s response during inter partes reexamination?
The USPTO recognizes that sometimes a patent owner’s response may inadvertently omit certain matters or requirements while still being a bona fide attempt to respond and advance prosecution. In such cases, the USPTO may provide an opportunity for the patent owner to address the omission. According to MPEP 2666.10: “When action by the patent owner…
Read MoreWhat happens if the first maintenance fee payment was not properly processed?
If the USPTO determines that the first maintenance fee payment was not properly processed, they follow a specific procedure. According to MPEP 2532: “If a review of the Office record of the first maintenance fee payment reveals that the first payment was not properly processed (e.g., did not comply with 37 CFR 1.366(c) or was…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle protests alleging fraud or violation of duty of disclosure?
The USPTO has specific procedures for handling protests that allege fraud or violation of the duty of disclosure. According to the MPEP: “Information indicating ‘fraud’ or ‘violation of the duty of disclosure’ under 37 CFR 1.56 may be the subject of a protest under 37 CFR 1.291. Protests raising fraud or other inequitable conduct issues…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle excessive submissions in inter partes reexamination?
The USPTO has discretion to manage the volume of submissions in inter partes reexamination proceedings. According to MPEP 2686: “If the Office, in its sole discretion, deems the volume of the papers filed from litigations or other proceedings to be too extensive/lengthy, the Office may return, expunge or discard, at its sole discretion, all or…
Read More