Archive for category: MPEP Q and A Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

What does the Office need at the time of receipt in order to accord the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application?

Answer:

The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that the Office has found that, at the time of receipt:

(i) the applicant does not obviously lack, for reasons of residence or nationality, the right to file an international application with the receiving Office,

(ii) the international application is in the prescribed language,

(iii) the international application contains at least the following elements:

• (a) an indication that it is intended as an international application,
• (b) the designation of at least one Contracting State,
• (c) the name of the applicant, as prescribed,
• (d) a part which on the face of it appears to be a description
• (e) a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1800 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patent Cooperation Treaty.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. 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 comes from section 1810 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 1810.

1810 Filing Date Requirements

An international filing date is accorded to the earliest date on which the requirements under PCT Article 11(1) were satisfied. If the requirements under PCT Article 11(1) are not satisfied as of the date of initial receipt of the international application papers, the receiving Office will invite applicant to correct the deficiency within a set time limit.

The USPTO is also not competent to receive international applications that are not in the English language and, upon payment of a fee equal to the transmittal fee, the USPTO will forward such applications to the International Bureau provided they are in a language accepted by the International Bureau as receiving Office.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

How can petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) be sent to the USPTO?

Answer:

Petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) may be:

• (A) mailed to “Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents”;
• (B) transmitted by facsimile;
• (C) hand-carried to the Office of Petitions; or
• (D) filed via EFS-Web as an ePetition.

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 1300 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Allowance and Issue.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. 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 comes from section 1308 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 1308.

1308 Withdrawal From Issue

This section covers the withdrawal of an application from issue. Specific topics discussed include the withdrawal from issue at the initiative of the applicant both prior to and after the payment of the issue fee.  Withdrawal from issue at the initiative of the Office is also covered.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

Can a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) stop publication of an application?

Answer:

A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not stop publication of the application unless it is recognized and acted on by the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to avoid publication. The petition will be granted when it is recognized in sufficient time to avoid publication of the application. The petition will be denied when it is not recognized in time to avoid publication.

Generally, a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not be granted and the application will be published in regular course unless such declaration of express abandonment and petition are received by the appropriate officials more than four weeks prior to the projected date of publication. It is unlikely that a petition filed within four weeks of the projected date of publication will be effective to avoid publication. Also note that withdrawal of an application from issue after payment of the issue fee may not be effective to avoid publication of an application under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 700 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Examination of Applications.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. 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 comes from section 711.01 of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of section 711.01.

711.01 Express or Formal Abandonment

This section discusses the details of express or formal abandonment. For instance, the applicant or the attorney/agent of record, if any, can sign an express abandonment. Details are provided where a letter of express abandonment is being submitted in an allowed application after the payment of the issue fee, to avoid publication of an application, to obtain a refund of the search and excess claims fee, and an application in interference.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

How can a provisional obviousness rejection be overcome?

Answer:

A provisional obviousness rejection can be overcome by:

• Arguing patentability over the earlier filed application;
• Combining the subject matter of the copending applications into a single application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the prior applications and abandoning the copending applications
• Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 showing that any unclaimed invention disclosed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of the other application and is thus not invention “by another”;
• Filing an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(a) showing a date of invention prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application.
• For an application that is pending on or after December 10, 2004, a showing that (1) the prior art and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person, or (2) the subject matter is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) (i.e., joint research agreement disqualification).

Chapter Details:

The answer to this question can be found in chapter 700 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Examination of Applications.

The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. 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 comes from section 706.02(k) of the MPEP.  The following is a brief summary of this section:

706.02(k)  Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Using Provisional Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)

This section covers a provisional rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 using provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e). There is an overview of the historical background including a discussion of the CREATE Act.

Provisional obviousness rejections are discussed in detail. Where two applications of different inventive entities are copending, not published, and the filing dates differ, a provisional rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based on provisional prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) should be made in the later filed application unless the application has been excluded under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c). Otherwise the confidential status of unpublished application, or any part thereof, must be maintained.

In addition, so long as the applications have at least one inventor in common and the other requirements are met, the Office will permit a claim for 35 U.S.C. 120 benefit without any additional submissions or notifications from applicants regarding inventorship differences.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | RSS

Question:

Have parties to AIA proceedings under Phillips required expanded page limits or otherwise incurred more expenses in their AIA trials than parties in AIA proceedings under BRI?

Answer:

PTAB has not found that parties to these AIA proceedings under Phillips require expanded page limits or otherwise incur more expense in their AIA trials than parties in AIA proceedings under BRI.

• The USPTO’s experience is that arguments under Phillips are not more complicated or more lengthy than arguments under the BRI standard.
• Rather, both standards are familiar to patent practitioners appearing before the USPTO and district courts.
• Consequently USPTO expects that these proceedings utilizing the Phillips standard will operate procedurally in much the same way as BRI proceedings using the BRI standard, that they will cost USPTO and parties no more to conduct, and that they will be completed within the statutory deadline.
• In sum, the direct result of USPTO changing the claim construction standard argued in some AIA trials from one well-known standard to another well-known (as noted, a standard already used in some AIA trials) will not have direct economic impacts.

Chapter Details:

This question comes from the following supplement “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”. This is a special supplement that at the time of this recording is currently being tested on the Patent Bar exam. Depending on future changes to the supplement and the MPEP, the question and answer may not be applicable.

Section Summary:

The following is a brief summary of this supplement:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘‘USPTO’’ or ‘‘Office’’) revises the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review (‘‘IPR’’), post-grant review (‘‘PGR’’), and the transitional program for covered business method patents (‘‘CBM’’) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘‘PTAB’’ or ‘‘Board’’).

• In particular, the Office is replacing the broadest reasonable interpretation (‘‘BRI’’) standard such that claims shall now be construed using the same claim construction standard that is used to construe the claim in a civil action in federal district court.
• This rule reflects that the PTAB in an AIA proceeding will apply the same standard applied in federal courts to construe patent claims.
• The Office also amends the rules to add that any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the claim in a civil action, or a proceeding before the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’), that is timely made of record in an IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding will be considered.