2002 april Flashcards
Registered practitioner Pete received on September 13, 2001 a notice of allowance dated September 10, 2001 in a utility application filed December 5, 2000. The client for whom the application is being prosecuted has repeatedly stressed to counsel how valuable the invention is, and that it will remain so throughout the entire life of any patent that should issue. Pete is determined to take no chances with this application, particularly since patent term adjustment has been accumulated and the lack of any action or inaction by applicant that would cause loss of patent term adjustment. Thus, Pete is ready to pay the issue fee on the very day the Notice of Issue Fee Due is received. Before payment of the issue fee, the client faxes Pete information identifies prior art first cited on September 3, 2001 by the foreign office examining a foreign counterpart application. This prior art was not previously cited by another foreign patent office. The invention had been filed with a second foreign office that mailed the same prior art at a later date than the first foreign office. Also, this prior art was previously unknown to the client. The client is very desirous of having this cited art made of record in the file. Which of the following alternatives would best achieve the client’s objectives of maximizing patent term and having the foreign cited prior art considered by the USPTO?
b. As it is still within three months from the date cited by the foreign office, Pete can submit the prior art in the allowed application up to the last day of the three month period making any required statements and fee payments.
c. Pete should submit an IDS citing the prior art in the allowed application within 30 days of the September 3, 2001 mailing by the foreign office with any appropriate fees and statements.
(C) is the correct answer. 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(d) provides that submission of an information disclosure statement under §§ 1.97 and 1.98 will not be considered a failure to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution (processing or examination) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(c)(10) (submission of a paper after a notice of allowance) if the communication was not received by any individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 more than thirty days prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement. Submission of the information disclosure statement to the USPTO within 30 days from mailing by the foreign office would inherently meet the 30 day requirement for submission to the USPTO from receipt by a 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 party of the information from the foreign office. Meeting the 30 day period for filing the information disclosure statement after allowance will prevent a reduction of the patent term adjustment already accumulated.
Answer (B) is not the best answer. Complying with the three month period requirements under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(d) will permit the information disclosure statement to be considered in the allowed application without the need to withdraw from issue and refile. Answer (B) provides that the information disclosure statement can be submitted up to the end of the three month period, which means that the 30 day period of 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(d) may not be met and a reduction in the accumulated adjustment period may result.
Belle Bordeaux files a French patent application for a rejuvenating lotion in the French Patent Office on January 10, 2000. On January 10, 2001, she files a PCT Chapter I Request in the EPO Receiving Office, in which she requests that the European Patent Office act as the International Searching Authority. In her PCT application, Bordeaux claims priority to the French application, and indicates the U.S. as a designated state. Bordeaux makes an appointment to meet with you on June 8, 2001, to discuss filing a patent application in the USPTO on the rejuvenating lotion, in which she wants to claim priority not only to the PCT application, but also the French application. In preparing for your meeting with Bordeaux, you realize that she has several options here, and so you prepare an analysis of the various options, which are detailed below. Before entering the U.S. national stage, Bordeaux wishes to have an official international preliminary search report that indicates claims having the best chance of being patentable. Which of the following will achieve Bordeaux’s objective in accordance with proper USPTO practice and procedure?
(A) Bordeaux should enter the national stage by filing an application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on or before September 10, 2001.
(B) Bordeaux should file an application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) on or before September 10, 2001, claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the PCT application, and claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to the French application.
(C) Bordeaux should first file a PCT Chapter II Demand in the USPTO on or before August 10, 2001, and then file a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 111 on or before September 4, 2001.
(D) Bordeaux should first file a PCT Chapter II Demand in the USPTO on or before August 10, 2001, and then enter the national stage by filing an application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 on or before July 10, 2002.
(E) All of the above.
(D). This answer is correct because it would be the best option, as it would give Ms. Bordeaux the filing date of the PCT, specifically 1/10/01, as her U.S. filing date (for the purpose of determining whether information is prior art), it would give her a foreign priority date of 1/10/00, with no further need to provide the foreign priority document; it would also give her the full benefits of filing PCT applications, i.e., a search report and preliminary examination report on her invention(s) prior to filing a national application, so that she has an indication of which claims have the best chance of being determined to be patentable.
Registered practitioner Joe files a design patent application under 37 CFR 1.53(b) having one claim on May 6, 1999. The USPTO sends Joe a notice of allowance dated November 10, 2000. Joe pays the issue fee on November 15, 2000. On November 23, 2000, Joe learns about a publication (the “Smith Reference”) which he knows to be material to patentability of the claim, but which was not considered by the examiner during prosecution of the application. Joe prepares an information disclosure statement that complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98, listing the Smith reference. Which of the following actions, if taken by Joe on November 24, 2000, will result in a request for continued examination of the application being granted in accordance with USPTO rules and procedure?
(A) Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, without the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e).
(B) Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e).
(C) Filing a request for continued examination of the application with the information disclosure statement listing the Smith Reference, the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), and a petition under 37 CFR 1.313 with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h).
(D) (B) or (C) above.
(E) None of the above.
E
706.07
RCE doesn’t apply to design patent after August 16, 2000
The prior art exception in 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) only applies to what references?
that are only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), (f), or (g).
A nonprovisional patent application was filed by a registered practitioner in the USPTO with a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The declaration named the individuals known to the practitioner to be the inventors of the claimed invention, but the declaration was not signed by any of the individuals. Within two weeks of the filing the application, the practitioner discovered that there is one more individual, who was not named on the unexecuted declaration, who is an inventor in the claimed invention. Which of the following actions, if undertaken by the practitioner, would properly correct the inventorship in the patent application?

File a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63, identifying all the inventors including the newly discovered inventor, which is signed by each of the inventors.
File only a letter requesting that the inventorship be changed to add the newly discovered inventor.
File a petition under 37 CFR 1.48(a) for correction of inventorship. The petition contains only a request to add the newly discovered inventor. File with the petition(1) a new oath or declaration identifying and signed by only the newly discovered inventor, and (2) the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
File a petition under 37 CFR 1.48(a) for correction of inventorship consisting only of a request to add the newly discovered inventor, a statement by the newly discovered inventor that the error occurred without deceptive intention on his part and a petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i).
All of the above.
The correct answer is (A). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.48(f)(1) wherein the first submission of an executed oath or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.63 by any of the inventors during the pendency of the application will act to correct the earlier identification of inventorship in the unexecuted declaration.
Applicant files a patent application in Japan on February 28, 1996. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on February 27, 1997, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on August 28, 1997. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on August 28, 1998. The USPTO publishes the application on June 7, 2001 at the request of the applicant. The application issues as a United States patent on December 4, 2001.
- When examining an application filed on or after November 29, 2000 or any application that has been voluntarily published, what is its earliest possible prior art date, for the June 7th U.S. published application in view of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999?
- For the US patent, what is the patent’s earliest date, for prior art purposes as a patent, in view of the amendment to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999?
???
J. Q. Practitioner represents the IMAKECOPY Corp., which is an importer of widgets into the USA. At the request of his client, J. Q. Practitioner is reviewing the prosecution history of a published patent application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111, that contains process claims for making widgets and other claims directed to the widget products. The application lists Rob M. Blind as the inventor and Wesue Corp. as the assignee. Rob M. Blind is an employee of the Wesue Corp. which is a competitor of the IMAKECOPY Corp. The prosecution history of the published patent application contains a restriction requirement made by the examiner followed by an election of the process claims by the applicant, and cancellation of the non-elected product claims. No related patent applications are referenced in the published patent application or its prosecution history. A search of public USPTO databases indicates no divisional patent application has been published or issued as a patent. J. Q. Practitioner wants to obtain more information concerning the cancelled product claims. Which of the following statements is true?
(A) J. Q. Practitioner cannot obtain other information because no information about pending unpublished applications is available under 35 U.S.C. § 122, except for previously filed applications.
(B) J. Q. Practitioner may obtain a copy of the originally filed application and a copy of all unpublished divisional applications containing the non- elected product claims.
(C) J. Q. Practitioner may obtain a copy of all unpublished applications including their prosecution histories for any patent application containing the non-elected product claims.
(D) J. Q. Practitioner may file a written request for the File Information Unit (FIU) to ascertain if there are any earlier or subsequently filed applications claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the published application and their status.
(E) J. Q. Practitioner may request, either in person or in writing, that the File Information Unit (FIU) ascertain and disclose if there are any subsequently filed applications claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of the published application and their status.
The model answer is choice (E). 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(b)(4). MPEP § 102, “Information as to status of an Application.” Under 37 C.F.R. §1.14, the Office may provide status information for pending patent applications that claim the benefit of the filing date of an application for which status information may be provided. Hence information will only be available on this basis for subsequently filed applications.
Company X competes with Patentee Y. In response to an accurate notification from Company X, acting as a third party, that Patentee Y’s patent contains a printing
error, incurred
through the fault of the USPTO, the USPTO:
must issue a certificate of correction.
must reprint the patent to correct the printing error.
need not respond to Company X.
should include Company X’s notification in the patent file.
must notify Company X of any USPTO decision not to correct the printing error.
(C) is the most correct answer. See 37 C.F.R. §1.322(a)(2)(i) (“There is no obligation on the Office to act on or respond to a submission of information or request to issue a certificate of correction by a third party under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section”). See MPEP § 1480.
An international application designating the United States is filed with the USPTO in its capacity as a Receiving Office, which properly accords the application an international filing date of 02 August 2001. The application properly claims priority solely to an earlier British application filed 02 August 2000. A Demand was not filed within 19 months from this priority date. On 10 April 2002, applicant filed a “Transmittal Letter to the United States Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US) Concerning a Filing Under 35 U.S.C. § 371” (Form PTO-1390), which identified the international application, and was accompanied by payment in full of the basic national fee. An oath or declaration, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 371(c)(4), was not submitted. As of 10 April 2002, the U.S. national stage application was:
Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee within 20 months from the priority date.
Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee and copy of the international application within 20 months from the priority date. Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee, copy of the international application, and oath or declaration within 20 months from the priority date.
Abandoned for failure to submit the basic national fee within 20 months from the international filing date.
Not abandoned.
The correct answer is (E). PCT Article 22 was recently amended to permit applicant to delay entry into the national stage until 30 months from the earliest claimed priority date, regardless of whether a Demand was filed within 19 months from said date.
If, in April 2001, a practitioner files an application, properly establishes the applicant’s small entity status, and “by mistake” pays the filing fee by submitting a check drawn in the amount that is twice the amount of the small entity filing fee, a refund of the excess fee may be obtained upon request filed any time during pendency of the application and life of any patent granted on the application.
false; “Any request for refund must be filed within two years from the date the fee was paid.”
Perfecting priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 by, in part, amending the declaration of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference.
proper to overcome 102(a)?
not correct because to perfect priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119(e) or 120 it is, inter alia, necessary to amend the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application having a filing date prior to the reference. See MPEP § 706.02(b), supra. Furthermore, the declaration is not to be amended.
Perfecting a claim to priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) based on a foreign application having a foreign priority filing date that antedates the reference. should do
- Joe Inventor received a patent in July 1999, containing claims to both an article and an apparatus. When filed in the USPTO, the application contained disclosure of a method, but the method was not claimed. The patent contained the same disclosure of the method, but the method had never been claimed in the application. In May 2001, Joe asks Pete Practitioner to file a reissue application to add claims to the method disclosed in the specification. Once filed, which of the following will most likely occur during the prosecution of the reissue application in accordance with published USPTO practice and procedure?
(A) The examiner should reject the added method claims on the basis of not being for the invention claimed in the original patent, under 35 U.S.C. §251, citing In re Rowand, 187 USPQ 487, and allow the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims in the reissue application.
(B) Following a restriction requirement by the examiner in the reissue application, the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims will be constructively elected, examined, and, if found allowable, passed to issue, while the non-elected method claims should be filed in a divisional application.
(C) Following a restriction requirement in the reissue application and the filing of a divisional application to claim the method, the applicant should request a duplicate copy of the original patent so that a copy of said patent can be surrendered in each reissue application.
(D) Following a restriction requirement by the examiner in the reissue application, the original unamended article and apparatus patent claims will be considered constructively elected; if after examination they become allowable in unamended form, they will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status inasmuch as no “error” under 35 U.S.C. §251 exists, while Joe prosecutes the claims to the method in a divisional application.
(E) A three-way restriction requirement among the article, apparatus and method claims should be made by the examiner in the reissue application, and an election made by applicant. Each invention should issue in a separate reissue patent.
The correct answer is (D). The practice is set out in MPEP §1450.
When the reference in question is a noncommonly owned U.S. patent claiming the same invention as applicant, and its issue date is less than one year prior to the presentation of claims to that invention in the application being examined, applicant’s remedy, if any, is by way of requesting an interference.
715.05 U.S. Patent or Application Publication Claiming Same Invention
filing requirements for CPA
Under MPEP 600; 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(d),
Applicant Homer filed a nonprovisional utility application on December 3, 2001 with 3 sheets of drawings. He received a non-final Office action on the merits on March1, 2002 rejecting all claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) with reference A and including objections to the drawings. The Office action set a shortened statutory period of 3 months for reply. Homer wants to submit several references in an information disclosure statement (IDS) for the examiner’s consideration. Under proper USPTO practices and procedures which of the following actions, if taken, would avoid abandonment?
Homer timely files a continued prosecution application under 37 CFR 1.53(d) with an IDS and required fees.
Homer timely files a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 with an IDS and required fees.
Homer timely files a request for suspension of action under 37 CFR 1.103 with an IDS and required fees.
Homer timely files a photocopy of the originally filed claims with proposed amendments marked in red, arguments that support the claims are patentable over the reference, proposed drawing corrections, an IDS, and any required fees or certification.
Homer timely files conclusory arguments that the exa miner’ s rejection is without merit and has no statutory basis.
(D) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 714.03. Homer’s reply is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action. The amendment will be considered as a non-responsive amendment because it does not comply with 37 C.F.R. §1.121. The applicant will be given a new time period of one month or 30 days from the mailing date of the notice of non-compliance to correct the amendment. 37 C.F.R. § 1.135(c); MPEP § 714.03.
Answer (B) is incorrect because the prosecution in the application is not closed. A reply in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 is missing. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.114(a); MPEP § 706.07(h).
