How can examiners use interviews to resolve indefiniteness issues?
Examiners are encouraged to use interviews as an effective tool to resolve indefiniteness issues. The MPEP provides guidance on this approach: “Issues of claim interpretation and clarity of scope may lend themselves to resolution through an examiner interview. For example, the examiner may initiate an interview to discuss, among other issues, the broadest reasonable interpretation…
Read MoreHow should examiners use abstracts in prior art rejections?
Examiners should be cautious when using abstracts for prior art rejections. The MPEP provides the following guidance: When both the abstract and the underlying document qualify as prior art, the underlying document should normally be used to support a rejection. When relying on an abstract, “the evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the…
Read MoreHow should the <213> numeric identifier be used in a sequence listing?
The numeric identifier in a sequence listing has a specific use according to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). As stated in MPEP 2424.02: “ is used for the name of the organism from which the sequence was obtained” This means that when providing a sequence listing, you should use the identifier to specify…
Read MoreCan these methods also be used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection?
Yes, the methods used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection can also be used to overcome a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection that is based on 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) prior art. MPEP 2152.06 explicitly states: “Note that all of the ways of overcoming a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) rejection mentioned…
Read MoreCan an invention have utility but still fail the enablement requirement?
Yes, an invention can have utility but still fail the enablement requirement. The MPEP provides an interesting insight into this situation: “In some instances, the utility of the claimed invention will be provided, but the skilled artisan will not know how to effect that use. In such a case, no rejection will be made under…
Read MoreHow does the AIA use the term “disclosure” in 35 U.S.C. 102?
The AIA (America Invents Act) uses the term “disclosure” in specific contexts within 35 U.S.C. 102, particularly in relation to exceptions to prior art. According to MPEP 2152.04: “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (b)(2), however, each state conditions under which a “disclosure” that otherwise falls within AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) is not prior…
Read MoreHow do “Use” claims relate to process claims in patent applications?
“Use” claims are closely related to process claims, but they often lack the specificity required for a proper process claim. According to MPEP 2173.05(q), a “Use” claim becomes problematic when it fails to set forth specific steps involved in the process. The MPEP states: “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved…
Read MoreWhat are the key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications?
The key differences between “use” claims and method claims in patent applications are: “Use” claims typically state the use of a product without any active steps, while method claims outline specific steps or actions. “Use” claims are often considered indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), while properly constructed method claims are not. Method claims are generally…
Read MoreWhy are “Use” Claims often rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101?
“Use” claims are often rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they fail to fall within the statutory categories of patentable inventions. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “‘Use’ claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.” This is further supported by case law,…
Read MoreCan a “Use” claim be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b)?
Yes, a “Use” claim can be rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both rejections. The MPEP 2173.05(q) states: “It is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) if the facts support both…
Read More