How does the USPTO determine if a person is “skilled in the art” for the purpose of enabling disclosure?
The USPTO determines if a person is “skilled in the art” by considering the typical level of expertise in the specific technological field of the invention. This standard is used to assess whether the patent specification provides enough information for such a person to understand and implement the invention. According to MPEP 2164.05(b), “The relative…
Read MoreWhat is the scope of the USPTO’s determination in a supplemental examination?
The MPEP 2815 outlines the scope of the USPTO’s determination in a supplemental examination: “The determination will generally be limited to a review of the item(s) of information identified in the request as applied to the identified claim(s) of the patent. The determination will be based on the claims in effect at the time of…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a Sequence Listing XML is “non-lengthy”?
The USPTO determines if a Sequence Listing XML is “non-lengthy” based on the size of the ASCII text file produced after transforming the XML file. According to MPEP 2419.01: “Upon transformation of the .xml file using the style sheet to an ASCII text file, any ASCII text file produced by the USPTO that is under…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a negative limitation has written description support?
How does the USPTO determine if a negative limitation has written description support? The USPTO examines negative limitations for written description support based on the guidance provided in MPEP 2173.05(i). The key factors include: Express disclosure in the specification Inherent disclosure based on what is described Original claims Drawings that show the absence of a…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a claim is directed to a law of nature or natural phenomenon?
The USPTO uses a two-step analysis to determine if a claim is directed to a law of nature or natural phenomenon. This process is outlined in MPEP Section 2106.04(b): Step 2A, Prong One: Examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a law of nature or natural phenomenon. Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claim recites an…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure?
The USPTO determines if a disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure through a case-by-case analysis. According to the MPEP: “What evidence is necessary to show that the disclosure is an inventor-originated disclosure requires case-by-case treatment, depending upon whether it is apparent from the disclosure itself or the patent application specification that the disclosure is an inventor-originated…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if subject matter is interfering?
The USPTO determines if subject matter is interfering by examining the claims of different applications or patents. According to MPEP 2301.03: An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a claim limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) uses specific criteria to determine if a claim limitation constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), examiners consider the following factors: Whether the extra-solution limitation is well known Whether the limitation is significant (i.e., it imposes meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a Markush grouping is improper?
How does the USPTO determine if a Markush grouping is improper? The USPTO determines if a Markush grouping is improper based on two main criteria, as outlined in MPEP 2117: Lack of a single structural similarity: The members of the Markush group do not share a common structure or feature. Lack of a common use:…
Read MoreHow does the USPTO determine if a prior art reference is enabling for a claimed compound?
The USPTO determines if a prior art reference is enabling for a claimed compound by considering several factors: The level of specificity in the prior art’s disclosure of the compound The presence of working examples or detailed synthetic procedures The predictability of the art The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art…
Read More