Patent Bar Mpep Q & A Podcast

Question: During what conditions would the complete file wrapper and contents of a patent application published in redacted form not be available? Answer: If an application was published in redacted form, the complete file wrapper and contents of the patent application will not be available if: The requirements of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) of § 1.217 have been met in the application; and the application is still pending. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Secrecy, Access, National Security, and Foreign Filing. The answer is from the… The post MPEP Q & A 274: Inspection of patent files by the public appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Can a request for ex parte reexamination filed on or after January 16, 2018 be filed with a reduced filing fee? Answer: Yes, requests for ex parte reexamination filed on or after January 16, 2018 may be filed with a reduced filing fee. This reexamination filing option was created to make it financially less burdensome for requesters with limited resources. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2200 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future changes… The post MPEP Q & A 273: Can a request for ex parte reexamination filed on or after January 16, 2018 be filed with a reduced filing fee? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Name a limitation that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Answer: Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g.,a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer; Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities… The post MPEP Q & A 272: Limitation that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are three pieces of information each patent listed in the Official Gazette may give? Answer: As to each patent listed in the Official Gazette, the following information may be given: (A) Patent number; (B) Title of the invention; (C) Name of inventor(s), city, and state or country of residence; (D) Assignee’s name, city, and state or country of residence, if assigned; (E) Applicant’s name, city, and state or country of residence; (F) Filing date and application number; (G) For reissue patents, the original patent number and issue date, and the original application number and filing date; (H) U.S.… The post MPEP Q & A 271: What are three pieces of information each patent listed in the Official Gazette may give? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Once an appellant has filed a notice of appeal, what situations may that appellant request that prosecution be reopened for? Answer: Once appellant has filed a notice of appeal, appellant also may request that prosecution be reopened for the following situations: In response to a new ground of rejection made in an examiner’s answer, appellant may file a reply in compliance with 37 CFR 1.111 that addresses the new ground of rejection within two months from the mailing of the examiner’s answer In response to a substitute examiner’s answer that is written in response to a remand by the… The post MPEP Q & A 270: Once an appellant has filed a notice of appeal, what situations may that appellant request that prosecution be reopened for? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two laboratory techniques the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. Answer: The courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means; Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA; Detecting DNA… The post MPEP Q & A 269: Two laboratory techniques the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the life science arts appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: If the Board affirms a rejection against independent claim 1, reverses all rejections against dependent claim 2 and claim 3 is allowed, after expiration of the period for further appeal, what should the examiner do? Answer: If the Board affirms a rejection against independent claim 1, reverses all rejections against dependent claim 2 and claim 3 is allowed, after expiration of the period for further appeal, the examiner should either: Convert dependent claim 2 into independent form by examiner’s amendment, cancel claim 1 in which the rejection was affirmed, and issue the application or ex parte reexamination certificate with claims 2… The post MPEP Q & A 268: What should the examiner do? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the four purposes 35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing? Answer: 35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing four purposes. First, 35 U.S.C. 101 limits an inventor to ONE patent for a claimed invention. If more than one patent is sought, a patent applicant will receive a statutory double patenting rejection for claims included in more than one application that are directed to the same invention. Second, the inventor(s) must be the applicant in an application filed before September 16, 2012, (except as otherwise provided in pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b)) and the inventor or each… The post MPEP Q & A 267: What are the four purposes 35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Name one advantage a CPA has compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). Answer: A CPA has a number of advantages compared to a continuation or divisional application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). For example, the papers required to be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in order to secure a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(d) are minimal compared to 37 CFR 1.53(b). In addition, the Office will not normally issue a new filing receipt for a CPA. See 37 CFR 1.54(b). The time delay between the filing date and the… The post MPEP Q & A 266: Name one advantage a CPA has compared to a continuation or divisional application appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test often referred to as? Answer: The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC. Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp.… The post MPEP Q & A 265: What is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test often referred to as? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How do examiners evaluate integration into a practical application? Answer: Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Many of these considerations overlap, and often more than one consideration is relevant to analysis of an additional element. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the… The post MPEP Q & A 264: How do examiners evaluate integration into a practical application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How is the markedly different characteristics analysis performed? Answer: The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties, and are evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does not exhibit markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is a product of nature exception. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does have markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is… The post MPEP Q & A 263: How is the markedly different characteristics analysis performed? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Give an example of a claim that does not recite mental processes because it cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Answer: Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF Tech; a claim to detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing… The post MPEP Q & A 262: Give an example of a claim that does not recite mental processes because it cannot be practically performed in the human mind. appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is meant by a fundamental economic practice or principle? Answer: The courts have used the phrases “fundamental economic practices” or “fundamental economic principles” to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term “fundamental” is not used in the sense of necessarily being “old” or “well-known.” However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision… The post MPEP Q & A 261: What is meant by a fundamental economic practice or principle? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Can an inventor apply for a patent jointly even when they did not physically work together or at the same time? Answer: The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. “Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though: they did not physically work together or at the same time, each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.” Chapter Details: The… The post MPEP Q & A 257: Can an inventor apply for a patent jointly even when they did not physically work together or at the same time? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What type of applications and proceedings may submit photographs, color drawings, grayscale drawings, and other drawings that are not black and white line drawings via EFS-Web? Answer: Photographs, color drawings, grayscale drawings, and other drawings that are not black and white line drawings may be submitted via EFS-Web in only the following types of applications and proceedings: (1) Nonprovisional design patent applications, including reissue design patent applications; (2) Provisional applications; (3) Nonprovisional utility patent applications, including reissue utility patent applications; (4) U.S. national stage applications; (5) International design applications; (6) Reexamination proceedings for utility or design patents; (7) Supplemental… The post MPEP Q & A 256: What type of applications and proceedings may submit drawings that are not black and white line drawings via EFS-Web? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When do members of a Markush group share a ‘single structural similarity’? Answer: Members of a Markush group share a “single structural similarity” when they belong to the same recognized physical or chemical class or to the same art-recognized class (prong 1) and the members of a Markush group share a common function or use when they are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent (prong 2). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th… The post MPEP Q & A 255: When do members of a Markush group share a ‘single structural similarity’? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What must a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) state? Answer: A statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) must state either; that each item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was first cited in any communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application not more than three months prior to the filing of the statement, or that no item of information contained in the information disclosure statement was cited in a communication from a foreign patent office in a counterpart foreign application, and, to the knowledge of the person signing the statement after making reasonable inquiry,… The post MPEP Q & A 254: What must a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) state? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What must a claim in dependent form contain? Answer: A claim in dependent form shall contain: (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 600 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Parts, Form, and Content of Application. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in later Editions or revisions. Section Summary: This question and answer… The post MPEP Q & A 253: What must a claim in dependent form contain? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When the online fee payment in EFS-Web is unavailable, what types of submissions cannot be filed via EFS-Web, since online fee payment must accompany the submission? Answer: When the online fee payment in EFS-Web is unavailable, the following types of submissions cannot be filed via EFS-Web, since online fee payment must accompany the submission: (1) Petitions that require a fee for auto-processing by EFS-Web; (2) Pre-grant publication submissions that require a fee; (3) Third-party preissuance submissions that require a fee; and (4) Web-based Issue Fee Payment. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 500 of the… The post MPEP Q & A 252: When the online fee payment in EFS-Web is unavailable, what types of submissions cannot be filed via EFS-Web? appeared first on Patent Education Series.