How does the effective filing date of a WIPO published application affect its use as prior art?
The effective filing date of a WIPO published application is crucial in determining its use as prior art. MPEP 2154.01(a) states: “The WIPO publication of a PCT international application that designates the United States is an application for patent deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) for purposes of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) under 35 U.S.C.…
Read MoreWhat is the “Window Period” for patent maintenance fee payments?
The “Window Period” for patent maintenance fee payments refers to the specific timeframe during which these fees can be paid without incurring late fees or risking patent expiration. According to MPEP 2575: “The ‘window period’ is the period of time at the end of the full term of a patent during which the maintenance fee…
Read MoreHow does the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix affect 112(f) interpretation?
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC significantly impacted the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to MPEP 2181: “The Federal Circuit has stated that the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is overcome when the claim term fails…
Read MoreWhy doesn’t the USPTO investigate duty of disclosure issues during patent examination?
The USPTO does not investigate duty of disclosure issues during patent examination for several reasons: Lack of appropriate tools: The USPTO lacks the necessary tools to effectively deal with these complex issues. Sensitive nature: Duty of disclosure and inequitable conduct are sensitive matters with potential significant impact on a patent. Judicial doctrine: Inequitable conduct is…
Read MoreWhy did the USPTO set a time limit for requesting ex parte reexamination?
The USPTO set a time limit for requesting ex parte reexamination to align with the period of enforceability of a patent. As explained in MPEP 2211, “the Office considered that Congress could not have intended expending Office resources on deciding patent validity questions in patents which cannot be enforced.” This rationale was supported in the…
Read MoreWhy are omnibus claims rejected in patent applications?
Omnibus claims are typically rejected in patent applications because they are considered indefinite. The MPEP 2173.05(r) states: “This claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it is indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language.” In other…
Read MoreWhy are interferences not declared for applications under secrecy orders?
Interferences are not declared for applications under secrecy orders primarily due to confidentiality concerns. The MPEP 2306 explains: “Once an interference is declared, an opposing party is entitled to access to the application and benefit applications pursuant to 37 CFR 41.109. See MPEP § 2307.02. Consequently, an interference should not be suggested for an application…
Read MoreWhy were inter partes reexamination requests discontinued?
Inter partes reexamination requests were discontinued as part of the changes implemented by the America Invents Act (AIA). While MPEP Section 2619 doesn’t explicitly state the reason, it notes: “No requests for inter partes reexamination may be filed on or after September 16, 2012.” This change was made to streamline patent challenge procedures and replace…
Read MoreWhat is the purpose of requiring an applicant to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c)?
The purpose of requiring an applicant to add a claim under 37 CFR 41.202(c) is to provoke an interference proceeding. According to MPEP 2304.04(b), this requirement may be made “to obtain a clearer definition of the interfering subject matter or to establish whether the applicant will pursue claims to the interfering subject matter.” The MPEP…
Read MoreWhy are ex parte communications prohibited in patent interferences?
Ex parte communications are prohibited in patent interferences to maintain the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. The MPEP 2307.01 explains: “Since an interference involves two or more parties, the integrity of the process requires the opportunity for the opposing party to participate in communications or actions regarding any involved application or patent.” This prohibition…
Read More