What is the time frame for the USPTO Director to make a determination on a reexamination request?
According to 35 U.S.C. 303, the USPTO Director has three months following the filing of a request for reexamination under 35 U.S.C. 302 to determine whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent is raised by the request. The MPEP states: “35 U.S.C. 303 requires that within 3 months following…
Read MoreCan the Director make exceptions to the “special dispatch” requirement in inter partes reexamination?
Yes, the Director of the USPTO can make exceptions to the “special dispatch” requirement in inter partes reexamination proceedings for good cause. This is explicitly stated in 35 U.S.C. 314(c): “Unless otherwise provided by the Director for good cause, all inter partes reexamination proceedings under this section, including any appeal to the Board of Patent…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine what invention is sought to be patented?
How does the USPTO determine what invention is sought to be patented? According to MPEP 2103, the USPTO determines what invention is sought to be patented by carefully analyzing the disclosure and claims of the patent application. The MPEP states: “The claimed invention is defined by the words of the claims interpreted in light of…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a biological deposit is necessary for a patent application?
The necessity of a biological deposit is determined on a case-by-case basis by the USPTO. According to MPEP 2403: “For the most part, this issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.” The examiner evaluates whether the deposit is needed to satisfy the statutory requirements for patentability, particularly the enablement requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if the written description requirement is met?
The USPTO determines if the written description requirement is met through a case-by-case analysis. According to MPEP 2163.02: “The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed.” This assessment…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if an SNQ exists for patent reexamination?
The USPTO determines if a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) exists for patent reexamination through a careful evaluation process. According to MPEP 2242: “If a reexamination request relies on references already considered by the Office, the request must demonstrate that a substantial new question of patentability is raised by the art, when the art…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine the inventor’s field of endeavor in patent applications?
The USPTO determines the inventor’s field of endeavor by examining the content of the patent application, particularly the specification. According to MPEP 2141.01(a): “The examiner must determine what is ‘analogous prior art’ for the purpose of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. ‘The determination of what is analogous prior art is fact…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor?
The USPTO determines if a disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor by examining the evidence provided and the circumstances of the disclosure. According to MPEP 2155.02: “The Office is not required to evaluate the sufficiency of the declaration or affidavit beyond ensuring that the declaration or affidavit addresses the subject matter of…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if claim language is definite?
The USPTO determines if claim language is definite by applying the following principles: Claims are reviewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Definiteness is evaluated in light of the content of the application disclosure, prior art of record, and claim interpretation that may be provided…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a claim falls within a statutory category?
The USPTO determines if a claim falls within a statutory category through Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. As described in MPEP § 2106, Step 1 asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? The MPEP provides guidance on this process: The claim should be evaluated using its broadest reasonable…
Read More