Can the USPTO examine claims not requested for reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302?
Yes, the USPTO can examine claims not specifically requested for reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302, but this is at the discretion of the Office. According to MPEP 2243: The decision to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested under 35 U.S.C. 302 lies within the sole discretion of the Office, to be…
Read MoreCan USPTO examiners discuss the consideration of specific evidence in a concluded supplemental examination?
No, USPTO examiners should not discuss the consideration of specific evidence in concluded supplemental examinations with external parties. The MPEP 2803.01 clearly states: “Employees of the Office, particularly CRU examiners who have conducted a supplemental examination proceeding that has been concluded, should not discuss or answer inquiries from any person outside the Office as to…
Read MoreCan the USPTO examine claims not specifically requested for reexamination?
Yes, the USPTO can examine claims not specifically requested for reexamination, but it’s at their discretion. MPEP 2643 states: “The decision to reexamine any claim for which reexamination has not been requested lies within the sole discretion of the Office, to be exercised based on the individual facts and situation of each individual case.” However,…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO examine for written description compliance?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has specific procedures for examining written description compliance in patent applications. According to MPEP 2163.01: “While the test or analysis of description requirement and new matter issues is the same, the examining procedure and statutory basis for addressing these issues differ.” Examiners typically compare the claims to…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO examine means-plus-function claims?
The USPTO examines means-plus-function claims using a two-step analysis, as explained in MPEP 2182: Define the function: The examiner must first identify the specific function claimed in the limitation. As stated in the MPEP, “The court must construe the function of a means-plus-function limitation to include the limitations contained in the claim language, and only…
Read MoreHow does examination work for international design applications designating the United States?
The examination process for international design applications designating the United States involves several steps: Receipt and Examination: The USPTO examines international design applications based on the published international registration received from the International Bureau. Substantive Examination: As stated in the MPEP, “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 389, the USPTO will examine international design applications designating the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle ex parte reexamination when all claims are held invalid by a court?
When a court issues a final decision holding all claims invalid or unenforceable in a patent undergoing ex parte reexamination, the USPTO has specific procedures to follow. According to MPEP 2286: “If all of the claims being examined in the reexamination proceeding are finally held invalid or unenforceable, the reexamination will be vacated by the…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate utility in the context of human or animal treatment methods?
The USPTO evaluates utility for human or animal treatment methods using the same standards as other inventions, but with some specific considerations. According to MPEP 2107.01: “Inventions asserted to have utility in the treatment of human or animal disorders are subject to the same legal requirements for utility as inventions in any other field of…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate the nature of a transformation in patent claims?
The USPTO evaluates the nature of a transformation in patent claims by considering several factors. According to MPEP 2106.05(c), examiners should consider the following: The particularity or generality of the transformation: More specific transformations are more likely to be meaningful. The degree to which the recited article is particular: A transformation applied to a specific…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO evaluate “sufficient cause” for time extensions in inter partes reexamination?
The USPTO evaluates “sufficient cause” for time extensions in inter partes reexamination by balancing two factors: Providing the patent owner a fair opportunity to respond Adhering to the statutory requirement for special dispatch (35 U.S.C. 314(c)) The MPEP states: “Evaluation of whether “sufficient cause” has been shown for an extension must be made by balancing…
Read More