What information is included in the filing receipt for an international design application?
When the USPTO receives the publication of an international design application under Article 10(3) of the Hague Agreement, it sends a filing receipt to the applicant. According to the MPEP, this filing receipt includes the following information: U.S. application number U.S. filing date Inventorship Applicant information Other relevant application data of record The MPEP states:…
Read MoreWhat are the filing options for international design applications at the USPTO?
What are the filing options for international design applications at the USPTO? The USPTO offers multiple filing options for international design applications. According to MPEP 2905: EFS-Web: “Applicants may file international design applications electronically through EFS-Web.” Paper filing: “Alternatively, international design applications may be filed on paper with the USPTO by mail.” Hand delivery: Paper…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO define the “field of endeavor” in patent examination?
The USPTO takes a broad approach to defining the “field of endeavor” in patent examination. According to MPEP 2141.01(a): “The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact specific and may vary from case to case. In determining whether a reference is reasonably pertinent, an examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor,…
Read MoreAre there additional fees for submitting large Sequence Listing files?
Yes, there are additional fees for submitting large Sequence Listing files to the USPTO. The fee structure is as follows: Sequence Listing ASCII plain text files of 300 MB or more are subject to a fee under 37 CFR 1.21(o). The fee is divided into two tiers: Tier 1: File sizes 300 MB to 800…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO handle fees for copies of records in contested cases?
The USPTO has specific requirements for fees related to copies of records in contested cases. According to MPEP 2307.02: “Any request from a party for access to or copies of Office records directly related to a contested case must be filed with the Board. The request must precisely identify the records and in the case…
Read MoreCan 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 More