Random Notes Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Filing a reexamination vs. an IDS?

A

You have a duty to file an IDS when you hear about material prior art when there is an open examination of a patent application. When there is no open examination and you hear of prior art you think is material

[mini exam 5]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what does it cost to file a certificate of correction to fix a patent error?

A

nothing. it is free

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

how long do you have to file a broadening reissue?

A

2 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Prosecution estoppel

A

if you made a point to rely on a claim limitation during prosecution you cannot then attempt to file a broadening reissue to broaden that claim limitation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Rules for determining the last day a 3rd party party pre-issuance submission could be filed

A
  1. find the later of: 6 months after publication VS date of first rejection
  2. Find the earlier of: the date from (1.) VS the date of the notice of allowance.

Answer is 1 day before the resulting date.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

After Examiner Answer how long do you have to file reply brief

A

2 months w/ extension for cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

when is any canceled matter in a US patent considered prior art under 102(a)(2)

A

as of the date the application publishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

can you amend claims of an international application after receiving the international search report?

A

Yes. you file amendments with International Bureau

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Can an application abandoned for more than five years be revived?

A

Yes . There is no time limit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How long after a notice of allowance is the issue fee due?

A

3 months. it is not extendable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is rule 59

A

If something is not required to be there to make a complete application (spec, claim, drawings, oath) than that information can be expunged upon payment of a fee by applicant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Can an original oath be filed with a continuation or division under 1.53(b)?

A

Yes. However, if its a continuation in part its not allowed because that contains new information.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

how long does one have to file a supplemental examination?

A

6 years after patent expiration since the SOL no infringement is 6 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

can an amendment be filed in a supplemental examination?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

living organism patent eligibility

A

as long as it is not identical to what is found in nature and its ‘man-made’ then it is patent eligible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

how are tax strategies treated under 101?

A

they are categorically exempt and say that tax strategies, known or unknown, are not eligible.

However, you may get patents on computer programs that practice a tax strategy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

derivation vs. interference

A

if its 2 AIA parties, its derivation

if its 2 pre AIA its an interference

if its 1 AIA and 1 pre AIA its interference plus a 102(g)

-remember that under AIA there is more prior art because a foreign filed application can be prior art if it is used to establish priority in a US patent application that publishes, US patent that issues, or a WIPO PCT that publishes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Graham Obviousness Factors

A

1) determine the scope and contents of the prior art
2) Ascertain the differences between prior art and the claims at issue
3) Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
4) Evaluate the evidence of secondary considerations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

KSR obviousness

A

layers onto the graham factors.

Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.

simple substitution of one known element for another toyed predictable results

use of known technique to improve similar devices

Obvious to try

known work in one field may prompt variations of it for use in same field or a different one based on market forces

TEACHING SUGGESTION OR MOTIVATION in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art references teachings to arrive at the claimed invention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

T/F: Publications dated after the filing date of an application may not be used by the patent examiner to support a rejection under 112(a) that the application does not provide an enabling disclosure which is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention

A

False

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

After final rejection, an amendment may not be entered except when certain requirements have been met

A

CFR 37.116

  • A showing of good and sufficient cause why the amendment was not earlier presented
  • Placing the application in better form for Appeal by reducing the issues on Appeal
  • Placing the application in condition for allowance by adopting examiner suggestions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

when you see a question about correct multiple dependent claim preambles - where do we look?

A

MPEP 608.01(n)

-The question this was ripped off of had correct answers that used the term “any” in the preamble.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Design patents overview

A

-all about the drawings - include 6 views

  • typically claim language starts with “an ornamental design for”
  • can use claim language “as shown and described”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

best mode requirement

A

112(a)

just needs to be the best mode known to the inventor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

“interconnectedness” requirement of 112

A

a claim needs to interconnect the way it is in the specification because otherwise its not supported

cannot rely on one of ordinary skill to assemble your invention in the claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How can you make an amendment after final for purposes of placing the case in condition for allowance?

A
  • show why the amendments were not earlier presented
  • remarks must address each and every objection and rejection of examiner
  • request reconsideration
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

can a broad generic claim still pass if it includes inoperative species of an invention?

A

Yes. as long as other operable species of the invention are also within the scope of the claim.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

how many characters are allowed for a double square bracket [[]] amendment

A

5 characters

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what does 37 CFR 1.132 cover?

A

affidavit used to traverse rejections showing objective evidence of Nonobviousness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what does 37 CFR 1.131 cover?

A

affidavit swearing behind a reference

Affidavit or declaration of prior invention or to disqualify commonly owned patent or published application as prior art.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

can you file a reissue to broaden claims to include subject matter given up to avoid prior art?

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

If you file a CIP and you add new material, what happens to your initial priority date?

A

you will lose the initial priority date for that new material filed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what kind of words do we want to use in a method claim? (easy structure note)

A

“-ing” words

these will guide the comparing of claim language for these method claims.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

can you use the word “preferably” in claims?

A

it is explicitly not allowed in MPEP 2100. this is an example of exemplary language not allowed in claims.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

can a provisional be filed for a design claim?

A

no

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

what is 3rd party pre-issuance submission?

A

MPEP 1900

once application publishes. its for a 3rd party while application is still pending to turn over patents and publications that they believe has a bearing on the patent application pending.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

citation of prior art under 2200

A

any person at any time while the patent remains enforceable, including the patent owner, may submit “prior art” in the form of printed patents, publications or patent-owner statements which that person believes has bearing on patentability

no fee required

can file anonymously. no guarantee the patent office even looks at it when it’s submitted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

2200 reexamination

A

only based on patents and printed publications applied under 102 and 103

anyone can do this

have to put together information and describe why this rises to a substantial new level of patentability

if the office thinks they should reexamine - then a process is conducted and only the patent owner is involved

response periods are limited to two months and extensions are only limited to “for cause”

if office decides to not look into it and its submitted by 3rd party then they can challenge it. have to file petition Commissioner within 1 month of the mailing date of that decision

reexamination cannot be withdrawn or cancelled after filing

new claims can be added but not broader claims

a reexamination can be revived if unintentional

A final rejection of examiner can be appealed like a normal application (only by patent owner)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Are reexaminations and reissue appeals to the PTAB conducted publicly?

A

Yes. 3rd party can come unless the patent owner has been granted a request that the hearing is closed to the public

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

if you timely respond to final rejection in reexamine what is the timeline on any further response

A

MPEP 700

you get another month to respond if you like

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Who can look at an application?

A

§ Applicant, representative, owner of application (employer, etc. if diff than applicant)

§ Owner normally only shows up after assignment of the rights of an application is filed with office

Any of those three who have access can grant access to others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

MPEP 140 foreign filing license

A

A foreign filing license is required before an application covering that invention can be filed in another country

acquired in 3 ways

  • passage of six months following the filing of any US application including provisional application
  • by being granted specifically on the filing receipt
  • by the granting of a petition asking for one
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Are all reissue applications open to the public?

A

Yes. Generally the rule is that not all pending applications are open to the public but those patent applications that publish are available only at that time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

are abandoned applications available to the public?

A

No. not unless they are mentioned in something that is itself available.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

is a continuation in part application of an issued patent available to public?

A

maybe. not unless the continuation is public

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What assignment records are available to the public?

A

For those patents/applications that are available to public the assignment records will be available.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

You find a patent that is a divisional. application of a parent that has not yet published. can you find the status of that application?

A

Yes. by submitting a written request for the status of the parent which includes a copy of the patent you found.

will not get access to the actual patent app contents but will get status.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

can you get a foreign filing license retroactively?

A

Yes. just have to show it was an honest mistake.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What has to be in a provisional application?

A

A cover sheet or signed ADS identifying:

  • the application as a provisional application
  • the names or name of inventor(s)
  • the residence of each named inventor
  • the title of the invention
  • the name and registration number of the agent or attorney
  • the docket number of the filer if any
  • the correspondence address
  • also, a specification as described by 112
  • drawings
  • filing fee
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

seven no no’s of provisional applications

A
no claims
no oath or declaration
no examination or amendment
no design applications
no possible claim for priority from other applications
no information disclosure statement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

what is a continuation application?

A

The second or third etc. application by the same applicant for the same invention claimed in a prior, non-provisional application and filed before the original parent becomes abandoned or is patented.

A continuation is typically filed to start fresh with prosecution after a final rejection rather than taking an appeal or filing an RCE

only need one common inventor with parent

all continuations require the parent is copending

An assertion of priority in the originally filed paperwork operates as an automatic incorporation by reference for inadvertently omitted subject from the priority application.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

what is a CIP?

A

A continuation in part is also the second application by the same applicant for the same invention claimed in a prior, non-provisional application and filed before the original parent becomes abandoned or is patented. In addition, a continuation in part repeats some substantial portion of the earlier application and adds matter not disclosed in the earlier application

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

what is a divisional application?

A

A divisional is a leader application for a distinct and independent invention carved out of a pending application, and claiming only subject matter disclosed in the earlier, parent application. A divisional must be copending with its parent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

What is an RCE?

A

A Request for Continued Examination is a procedure where a utility or plant application can be further examined upon request, with the fee, and the submission of something for the examiner to consider. It is not considered a new application filing but is rather an ongoing version of the original.

RCE must be accompanied by a submission (i.e., an amendment that meets the reply requirement of 37 CFR § 1.111)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Formal requirements for obtaining foreign priority

A
  1. File a claim for the priority i.e. ask that he or she be given the benefit of the foreign filing date in an ADS; and
  2. File a certified copy of the original for an application

(translation is necessary only if rejection given)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Requirements for recording assignments

A

1) be in English
2) Identify all patients assigned by number and applications by number
3) accompanied by correct fee (free if filed electronically)
4) be accompanied by cover sheet

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Joint Research Agreements and Prior art

A

102(c) provides three conditions that must be satisfied in order for subject matter disclosed which might otherwise qualify as prior art, and a claimed invention, to be treated as having been owned by the same person or as such:

1) the subject matter disclosed must have been developed in the claimed invention must have been made by, or on behalf of, one or more parties to a joint research agreement I was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claims invention; and
2) the claimed invention must have been made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement;
3) the application for Patton for the claimed invention must disclose, or be amended to disclose, the names of the parties to the joint research agreement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

small entity filing fee discounts

A

MPEP 500

small guys get half off and really small guys get 75% off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

for an application to be complete and get a fixed filing date, must include:

A

specification including a description

at least one claim

any required drawings – must be enabled properly under 112(a) so if drawings are required to enable they are needed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

can a certificate of mailing be used for a new patent application

A

No. However if you have already filed a provisional and then you are filing a non provisional apparently that is allowed. (form 500 prime questions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

can you correct inventorship in an application?

A

Yes. however it has to be for some form of an error. cannot just say they changed their mind.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

3 rules of dependent claims

A
  1. A multiple dependent claim cannot depend form another multiple dependent claim. If it does, it is improper and is counted in calculating fees as a single dependent claim
  2. A multiple dependent claim can depend from more than one previous claim in the alternative only (“and” is forbidden; “or” is permitted); and
  3. In calculating the number of claims for calculating fees, each proper multiple dependent claim counts as the number of claims from which it depends, and improper multiple dependent claims are counted as a single claim.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

The requirements as to timing for IDSs are as follows:

Information Disclosure Statement

A
  1. If filed within three months of the application filing date OR before the first action, only the IDS need be filed
  2. If filed after the first action, but before allowance or final action, either a statement OR a fee must be provided
  3. If filed after final action, close of prosecution or allowance, but before payment of issue fee, a statement AND a fee are required
    - the timing for filing an IDS cannot be extended

MPEP § 609, under the heading “Minimum Requirements for an Information Disclosure Statement,” under the subheading “B(3). Information Disclosure Statement Filed After B(2), but Prior to Payment of Issue Fee 37 CFR 1.97 (d)”, and subheading “B(5) Statement Under 37 CFR 1.97(e).” (A) The statement specified in 37 CFR § 1.97(e) requires that the practitioner certify, after reasonable inquiry, that no item of information contained in the IDS was known to any individual designated in 37 CFR § 1.56(c) more than three months prior to the filing of the information disclosure statement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

minimum content for IDS

A
  1. A list of the individual items submitted with parents identified by patentee, number and issue date; and publications identified by author, title, relevant page(s), date in place of publication
  2. A copy of every patent, publication or other information being submitted (including cited U.S. pending applications not in the IFW system)
  3. At least a concise explanation of relevance of anything not in English. Translation into English are required if they are readily available
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

what is an IDS generally?

A

Rule 1.56 “each person associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor in good faith and dealing with the office, which includes a duty to disclose to the office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability…”

IDS are preferred way to disclose possible material information to the Patent Office

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

IDS bright line rules:

A
  • The DUTY extends not only to the attorney and the inventor, but EVERYONE else associate with prosecution. This may include the owner of the patent, or an expert retained to do research in conjunction with responding to an official action
  • The information required to b disclosed includes information whether or not obtained in conjunction with the particular application in issue. Thus, if an attorney happen to remember some piece of prayer art he had seen in doing work in the past for another client, and that piece of prior art is material to the application in issue, failure to disclose would be a breach
  • a breach of the duty to disclose will result in a refusal to grant the patent if the failure is discovered before the patent issues, or invalidity of the patent if it is discovered after issue
  • The refusal to issue or invalidity result even if the patent owner and/or inventor are entirely blameless, and the breach was by others
  • The time for filing IDS cannot be extended
  • Information required to be disclosed extends to al 102 acts not just patents and printed publications
  • When material prior art is discovered after the application has been allowed and the issue fee paid, the proper course is to seek withdrawal of the application from issue so the art may be considered in a continuation application
  • Non-complying IDSs will be placed in the file, but not considered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

4 requirements of an oath submitted with application

A
  1. I am an inventor
  2. This was filed with my permission
  3. I have reviewed and understood it
  4. I acknowledge my duty of disclosure to the patent office
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

What is a way to correct inventorship? [600]

A

Pending application = Rule 1.48; by filing a continuation application with a new declaration signed by the new inventors.Have to pay filing fee

More efficient Rule 1.48 = file a new oath signed by the new inventor, and file an ADS adding the new inventor along with a fee correcting inventorship.***

after a patent has issued you can file a petition to the Commissioner under Rule 1.324 saying “this was a mistake” and thats all. there will be a certificate of correction put in.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

Notice of Omitted Items situation response options [600]

A

Live with whatever you have on file and accept the original filing date for the application with the missing information

or

send what is requested into the office and accept a later filing date.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What locations can you incorporate essential material from in an incorporation by reference?

A

A U.S. patent or a U.S. published application.

If you get this wrong you can fix my sending in an amendment and a declaration that the material added corresponds to what was added originally by reference. no new matter added.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What must you do to avoid an application becoming abandoned in response to a final office action? [700]

A

one of three things must happen:

  1. A response must be filed which the examiner agrees places the application in condition for allowance; or
  2. A Notice of Appeal must be filed; or
  3. The examiner, either on his or her own initiative or in response to a request by the applicant, converts the action to a non-final one.
    note: filing a continuation under rule 1.53(b) or (d) or RCE is not a ‘response’ since these are separate applications or initiate new proceedings and the parent is abandoned, or in the case of RCE, resuscitated for another round of prosecution.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What are your rights after final rejection? [700]

A

1) cancel claims
2) comply with requirements as to form or adopt suggestions of the Examiner
3) present claims in better form for consideration on appeal
note: other amendments will not be entered without a showing of why they were not presented earlier and why they are necessary.

there is no right for an interview after final rejection but they are usually granted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

2 month rule after final rejection [700]

A

Applicant has 6 months to sort out an application after final rejection.

The PTO will pick up the cost of any extension they cause but to be eligible for treatment it is up to applicant to active this cost-saving by responding within 2 months of the mailing date of the Final Rejection.

When this is done, the “free” response period lapses at the end of 3 months from the mailing date of the Final Action, or on the mailing date of the Advisory Action - whichever is later. further extensions are calculated from the end of the “free” period

in no event can the applicant extend beyond 6 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Do you have a right to an interview after the First Action?

A

Yes. you do not have a right to an interview after a Final Action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

What is a petition to make special? [700]

A

Applicant can be considered earlier (cut the line) for a set of special reasons. special status may be granted after filing a petition.

reasons include

NO FEES:

Illness of inventor
Environment - will help improve environment
Enegery - improves energy usage/supply
Age - inventor over 65
Contributes to countering terrorism

FEES:

Infringement - patent needed to stop infringement
Safer DNA
For asking - upon request; have to accept restriction requirements given by office, results of patentability search presented, copy of references w/ discussion submitted.
HIV/AIDS and cancer
superconductivity materials
biotech by small entity

special category added after Aug. 25, 2006:

submit a bunch of shit w/ thorough research. no more than 3 independent claims and no more than 20 total claims.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

can an applicant petition to suspend prosecution while there is an action outstanding?

A

NO. no matter how good the reason is.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

Due dates and extension of time under MPEP 710

A

Basic rules:

  1. Automatic extensions (no reason or cause required) are available for 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, and 5 months. A total automatic extension greater than 5 months is not possible.
  2. The 6 month statutory time-limit requirement for all responses to Official Actions cannot be extended. A response to every Official Action must be filed within 6 months to avoid abandonment

~~note: the two month deadline for filing an appeal brief is not statutory, and thus the full 5 month extension can be obtained. Likewise, response to a notice to file missing parts can be extended up to 5 months as well.

  1. Extensions of time are frequently necessary to make an application co-pending with its continuation or division so as to maintain the effective filing date.
    4a. Automatic extensions CANNOT be obtained in six circumstances:
  • Where the office action so states;
  • A Reply Brief (responsive to Examiner answer in appeal and to PTAB and interferences)
  • A request for an oral hearing in an Appeal
  • Responding to a decision of the Board
  • Anything in an interference; and
  • Due dates in reexaminations cannot be automatically extended and any extension for cause request in a reexamination must be filed before that due date.

4b. Due dates for the following CANNOT be extended even EVEN FOR CAUSE:

  • IDSs
  • Any due date set by statute (such as the six-month absolute deadline for replying to Official Action)
  • The issue fee can now, by statute, be paid late upon a proper showing, but it cannot be extended
  • Filing Formal Drawings at time Issue Fee is paid

Extra, Detailed rules:

  1. All dates are calculated from the mailing date from the patent office which is stamped on the action. The date of receipt by the attorney or applicant is irrelevant to the due date.
  2. By statute all responses to official actions must be filed within six months from the Patent Office mailing date, but the six month period can be shortened by the commissioner and usually is so shortened. All due dates from the Patent Office are either statutory or non-statutory. Statutory due dates can be extended only if they are shortened form the statutory six-month period and non-statutory dates can be extended unless specifically forbidden to be.
  3. the patent office has the power to set shorter periods for response (Shortened Statutory Period), and normally sets a shortened period.
  4. Whenever the patent office sets a shorter period to respond, an automatic extension of time up to five months can be obtained simply by asking and paying the fee, provided of course that, if the response is to in official action, the response must be filed within the statutory six month period.
  5. Automatic extensions of time can be obtained retro actively
  6. if the due dates fall on weekends or holidays, the due date is the next business day.
  7. due dates for a second and succeeding month are still calculated from the original mailing date.

  1. An extension of time cannot be obtained to pay the issue fee. However, the issue fee can be paid late upon a proper showing.
  2. One month means not less than 30 days. 2 months means not less than 60 days.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Abandonment and Revival Generally

A
  • Petition to Revive an unintentionally abandoned application must be accompanied by a response to any action which was outstanding at the time of abandonment or continuation
  • intentionally abandoned application cannot be revived
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

What is a terminal disclaimer

A

required whenever the term of the patent is calculated from the issue date and not the filing date. applies to all design patents.

might be used if there is a double patenting issue that needs resolved.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

Applicants obligations during examiner interview

A

Even if the examiner does record in writing the substance of each telephone or personal communication, the applicant still has the obligation to do so as well.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

Can you get an amendment after notice of Allowance?

A

Yes

To be entered, remarks accompanying the proposed amendment must state the four whys

  1. Why the amendment is needed; and
  2. Why no new search or consideration is required; and
  3. Why an amended or new claims are patentable; and
  4. Why the amendments were not earlier presented.

after issue fee is paid, no amendments are allowed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

Double Patenting Restrictions Generally

A

Double patenting is claiming the same invention or an obvious variant in two separate applications.

Where the inventions are the same, the rejection can be overcome only by canceling the claim or claims from one application.

Where they are an obvious variant and the two applications are commonly owned, the rejection can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer so that the two patents expire at the same time and expire if they ever cease being commonly owned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

Appeal brief timeline

A

Appeal Brief must be filed within two months of the date of the Notice of Appeal is received by the PTO

The time period is automatically extendable up to an additional 5 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

Reply Brief to Examiner Answer Timeline and basics

A

applicant has two months filling the Examiner’s answer to file a Reply Brief, which can now be filed as a matter of right. any extension of time must be for cause under 1.136(b)

If appellant fails to respond to an examiner’s answer that contains a new ground of rejection, the appeal will be sua sponte dismissed as to the claims subject to the new ground of rejection.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

Response Options for Applicant if Board of Appeals affirms examiner

A

Request a rehearing within 2 months, or Appeal to CAFC or District Court

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

Response Options for Applicant if Board of Appeals issues new ground of rejection

A

This IS NOT FINAL SO NOT APPEALABLE. A rejection cannot be appealed unless it is a Final Rejection or has been made twice.

Submit response and have examiner consider OR request rehearing and address new ground of rejection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

Can an extension be obtained to pay the issue fee?

A

Nah fam. No.

This is a 3 month period after the Notice of Allowance has been sent.

Potential for the issue fee to be accepted late in the event of an erroneous failure to pay. Muse have a petition to accept the fee filed under 1.137 with the 1.137 fee.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

Patent Term and Term Extension (MPEP 2700)

A

For Applications filed on or after the date of June 8, 1995 and before May 29, 2000, the 20 year term may be extended up to five years for delays in the issuance of the patent due to interferences, secrecy orders and or successful appeals to the board of pet appeals and interferences, or the federal courts

~~Applications are not available for PTA if file dafter May 29, 2000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) (MPEP 2700)

A

3 categories when PTA can happen:

  1. Certain Administrative delays:
    -greater than 14 months from initial filing to: Notice of Allowance, first office action, written description requirement, or an examiner request for information
    -Greater than 4 months to reply to an amendment or appeal (time runs from the time the appeal brief and fee are received) or
    -Greater than 4 months to act after decision by Board or CAFC or
    -Greater than 4 months to print patent once issue fee has been paid and all outstanding issues satisfied
    (14/4/4/4)!!

2.Overall pendency from initial filing to issue of more than 3 years
~Note: these periods are not counted against the 3 years: time consumed by continued examination under RCE, time consumed by secrecy order, interference, or appellate review, time consumed by applicant requested delays

  1. Delays to to Interference or Secrecy Orders and Successful Appeals

PTA can be reduced for applicant delays like: not having application ready for examination within 8 months of filing, suspension of prosecution, national stage procedures, etc.

~~Applications are not available for PTA if file dafter May 29, 2000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

What is the patent term of a design application?

A

15 years from issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
91
Q

MPEP 1400 Correction of Patents Generally

A

Reissue - A patent which is deemed (incorrectly but in good faith) by the owner to be wholly or partially inoperative or invalid may be reissued

The most common bases for filing a reissue application are: (1) the claims are too narrow or too broad; (2) the disclosure contains inaccuracies; (3) applicant failed to or incorrectly claimed foreign priority; and (4) applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to prior co-pending applications.

  • if it is broadening claims it must be filed within two years of the issue date of the patent
  • an oath or celebration is needed by assignee where no claims are broadened. If they are broadened you need one from all inventors with written assent of assignee

Cerificate of Correction - Mistakes of a clerical or typographical nature, whether by the Patent Office or the applicant, can be corrected.
-If the mistake is by the patent office then this is free

Disclaimer - renunciation of one or more patent claims in a patent. can have a terminal disclaimer as well.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
92
Q

plant patents

A

all plants are patentable except those which are 1) bacteria OR 2) tuber propagated. (potatoes and Jerusalem artichokes)

The plant must have either been invented or discovered in a cultivated state AND asexually reproduced before filing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
93
Q

The stages of the international filing phase (MPEP 1812)

A

1 Filing of the international application by the applicant, and its processing by the “Receiving Office”

  1. Establishment of the international search report by one of the “International Search Authorities” (ISA)
  2. A preliminary non-binding written opinion sent to the Applicant by the ISA as to novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability
  3. Publication of the international application along with the international search report
  4. (optional) establishment of an international preliminary examination that results in a second written report entitled “International Preliminary Report on Patentability”

notes on dates:

  • international search report is established about 16 months from the priority date.
  • Publication of the international application typically occurs about 18 months from priority date.
  • non-binding written opinion by the ISA is made publicly available at the end of 30 months from priority date
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
94
Q

Elements of International Application [1812]

A
  1. A request
  2. Designation of at least one contracting (PCT participating) state
  3. Name of applicant
  4. Specification, claim and drawing (if necessary to understand)
  5. an Abstract
  6. fee

abstract and fee can be submitted late

(if you filed with a non publication request - you wouldnt be able to file PCT but you can rescind these requests)

A nonpublication request must be made, if at all, at the time of filing an application. By filing a nonpublication request, the applicant is waiving the right to seek foreign patent protection in another country or under a multilateral international agreement that requires publication of applications at 18 months. The application may, however, rescind the previously filed nonpublication request at any time. In order to rescind the nonpublication request, the applicant must both rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing. Specifically, the applicant must, not later than 45 days after the date of filing of a foreign application or international application, notify the USPTO of such filing.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
95
Q

Unity of Invention [1875]

A

International application are subject to the “unity of invention” standard” of the Treaty

-the international application should set forth claims that relate to only one intention or to a group inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. Unity of invention is present only when there is a “technical relationship” among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same corresponding “special technical features”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
96
Q

PCT National Phase [1893]

A

To enter the national stage in the US, the following must be furnished to US patent office by end of 30th month after either the filing date or the priority date - whichever is earlier

  1. a copy of the international application
  2. the national filing fee

[CANNOT BE SUBMITTED LATE AND CANNOT BE EXTENDED]

-oath and translation must also be provided to designated office but can be filed later with usual surcharge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
97
Q

what is the term of a US patent granted from a PCT origin application?

A

20 years from the filing date of the international application. not the date it enters the national phase.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
98
Q

Summary of Typically tested PCT rules [1800]

A. Minimum Parts of International Application

A
  1. At least one “applicant” who is a US national or legal resident
  2. English description
  3. Request for treatment as an international application
  4. designation of at least one country (automatic) which can be US
  5. Abstract (may be submitted later)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
99
Q

Summary of Typically tested PCT rules [1800]

B. Tricky Issues Regarding Initial Filing

A
  1. Fee and Abstract may be submitted late
  2. “Applicant” means inventor OR owner
  3. Priority claim cannot be added late
  4. An all-encompassing designation is automatic
  5. The standard for restriction is based upon unity of invention and the U.S. restriction rules do not apply
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
100
Q

Summary of Typically tested PCT rules [1800]

C. National Phase

A

to enter national phase:

  1. copy of international application; and
  2. the national filing fee

These elements cannot be submitted late. These elements are due before expiration of the 30 month period

The oath and translation must also be provided to the designated Office but can be filed later with the usual surcharge

101
Q

Summary of Typically tested PCT rules [1800]

FOT/D.US.E

Pre AIA

A

for calculating 102(e) date of a US patent that stems from PCT. first look if ti was filed before or after Nov. 29, 2000. If yes, just look at FOT - if after then its full FOT/DUSE

FOT

-Fee Oath Translation

D.US.E

-Designate US English

if DUSE satisfied, then the PCT itself gets a 102(e) date as of its international filing date.

102
Q

Summary of Typically tested PCT rules [1800]

FOT/D.US.E

Post AIA

A

102(e) date is now the “effective filing” date (foreign filing date). plain and simple.

this is different than the “international filing date” in pre-AIA

103
Q

PCT Timetable [1800]

A
  1. Filing of International Application
    • no later than 12 months
  2. Int’l search report and written opinion by ISA; amendments by applicants; publication
    • About 16 months
    • Article 19 amendments (claims only)
    • the later of 22 months or 3 months from the mailing date of the Report and Written Opinion
    • about 18 months
  3. demand for preliminary examination
    • no later than 22 months
  4. Entry into national Phase
    • 30 months
104
Q

Interference MPEP 2300 generally

A

Interference is between 2 parties claiming exactly the same thing at the patent office. Trying to see who gets to claim it

Interference is not possible between applications with filling dates on or after 3/16/13 unless there is at least one claim present in each application that has full support in a priority document that has a pre-3/16/13 filing date

The examiner normally suggests that you amend a claim with very specific language so that you each have the same language to start an interference. if you refuse to amend then that exactly claim becomes prior art against you.

key -> someone has to be pending at the patent office. If 2 patents are newly issued and one believes there is the same claim then they have to file a reissue.

105
Q

Basic questions on 2400 biotechnology

A
  • where an invention includes biological material and words alone cannot describe how to make and use the invention - a deposit that lasts 30 years is required
  • symbols and format for nucleotide and or amino acids sequence characters shall conform to WIPO standard ST.25
106
Q

Basic Questions 2500 Maintenance Fees

A
  • Fees are due based on when term begins
  • US requires maintenance fees be paid at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after issue
  • payments can be made up to 6 months early. Can also be paid up to 6 months late w/ a late fee.
  • you can pay these things late if it was an honest mistake. however there are intervening rights (just as in reissue and reexamination). if someone relied on you not paying the fee during that window then you cant turn around and enforce the patent against them.
107
Q

Basic of Supplemental Examination [2800]

A
  • USPTO will look at substantial question of patentability on any issue the patent owner presents
  • this is different than reexamination which is limited to patents or printed publications.
  • If a new significant new question of patentability arises then a reexamination starts and you go through that process
  • you would do this to get a ruling on something to take the issue off the table - prevent future litigation etc.
108
Q

Basics of International Design Applications [2900]

A
  • USPTO will accept your international industrial design application
  • Need a foreign filing license.
  • Sent to office in Geneva. If they think the app sent to them by the indirect country of filing then they give it a international industrial design registration date which is coincident w/ the day it was sent to indirect country of filing
  • If Geneva says there are corrections, your date changes to the day you make those corrections
  • after it passes Geneva, the app is sent back to US. You will either get a Notice of Allowance or first office action
  • Instructor note: you will just file a design app in US and then you file a Hague agreement application for the rest of the world not including the US. this avoids all these delays
  • dont have to be a US citizen to file. just have to have “reasonable business presence” in US
109
Q

continuations under 1.53(b) vs 1.53(d)

A
  1. 53(b) is for continuations and continuation in part generally
  2. 53(d) is only for design patents. The prior application is abandoned once this is filed.
110
Q

Rule 1.130 affidavit

A
  • used to overcome an intervening disclosure
  • can be used to overcome a disclosure in the form of another patent application WHERE THE CLAIMS ARE DIFFERENT
  • if the patent application claims of an intervening disclosure are the same or substantially similar then you cannot use a 1.130

“Affidavit or declaration of attribution or prior public disclosure”

111
Q

Refresher. What day is an obviousness determination based off of? (AIA)

A

Based on the filing date of the application.

112
Q

Under AIA, which disclosures made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention may not be prior art (under the grace period)?

A
  • Printed publication
  • Issued patents
  • Public use
  • Offers for sale
113
Q

What must be included in an application to ONLY get a filing date

A
  • only a specification describing the invention. (As of PLTIA which became effective on Dec 18, 2013)
  • however, MPEP encourages you (in the case of a foreign application on hand you want to file in US) to file the entire application as its best practice.
114
Q

what does “deemed published” mean under 102(a)(2)?

A

example from question:

-a WIPO publication of a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) international application that designates the U.S.

115
Q

Refresher on pre-AIA and AIA as applied to applications, continuations, and CIPS

A

-magic date is March 16, 2013

  • continuations filed after the magic date that have parents filed before magic date get pre-AIA
  • CIPs that contains claims that are getting priority after the magic date get AIA treatment (the entire application gets viewed under AIA)
116
Q

What date will a foreign patent application serve as prior art to US applications?

A
  • it is the foreign filing date under AIA when foreign filing date is used to establish priority in a:
    1. US application that publishes;
    2. US patent that issues;
    3. Or a PCT application that publishes

-otherwise it is only prior art as of the date of the foreign publication of application/patent

117
Q

provisional applications priority timeline

A
  • you have 1 year to claim priority
  • you can have up to 2 additionally months to claim priority if you make a mistake and can show you made a mistake (under PLTIA which became effective Dec 18, 2013)
118
Q

Can you convert a non provisional into a provisional?

A

yes. can be useful if you accidentally file a non provisional without claims or something.

119
Q

Unavoidable abandonment ; unintentional abandonment; and PLTIA

A

PLTIA passed Dec 18, 2013

after PLTIA, you cannot petition to revive an application for unavoidable abandonment

after PLTIA you can only petition to revive based on unintentional abandonment

120
Q

Timeline for derivation proceeding?

A

An inventor who wishes to initiate a derivation proceeding has one year from publication/issuance of the respondents patent application

-the fee must be paid (cannot be paid later)

121
Q

what is the threshold of evidence needed to initiate a derivation proceeding?

A

a “substantial evidence” showing in the petition

  • burden never shifts in the proceeding and it always remains on the petitioner
  • it is absolutely necessary to file an affidavit relating to communication and lack of authorization
122
Q

what is a derivation proceeding as defined on USPTO website?

A

A derivation proceeding is a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine whether (i) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application, and (ii) the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding only within 1 year of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s claim to the invention. The petition must be supported by substantial evidence that the claimed invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application. The procedure for derivation took effect on March 16, 2013.

-note: these are allowed to be settled by the parties

123
Q

Do we care about conception for a derivation proceeding?

A

YES

this is the one time under AIA. you will have to demonstrate earlier conception in a derivation proceeding. This is the only way to do it.

124
Q

T/F: Inventor A files patent application on Dec 15 2013. A PCT application with Inventor A and B is filed on Dec 1 2013 that designates the US. The PCT application cannot be used as prior art for the dec. 15 filing

A

F.

We do not know who contributed what in the PCT application.

125
Q

If there is a single claim that comes after AIA passage in an application then the whole application gets AIA treatment (T/F)?

A

True

126
Q

what part will you lookup for patent ethics rules?

A

37 CFR part 11

127
Q

Under the PLTIA, what is the patent term adjustment if patent is not in condition for examination?

A

Patent term adjustment is reduced if an application is not in condition for examination within 8 months from either the date on which the application was filed or the date of commencement of the national stage in a PCT application

128
Q

in an obviousness determination, must all evidence submitted by the applicant be considered with equal weight?

A

No

129
Q

“Where there was reason to select and modify the lead compound to obtain the claimed compound, but no reasonable expectation of success, the claimed compound would not have been obvious.”

A

free card fam

130
Q

“Where there was reason to select and modify the lead compound to obtain the claimed compound, but no reasonable expectation of success, the claimed compound would not have been obvious.”

A

free card fam

131
Q

In the case of a chemical compound invention, how does the examiner start forming a prima facie case of obviousness?

A

by identifying a lead compound.

132
Q

When determining whether an invention is obvious, KSR explains: “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” Many cases, particularly in the chemical arts, turn on whether there is a “finite number” of predictable solutions. What is considered a “finite number”?

A

A small number of options; and

An easily traversed number of options

NOT a closed set and defined number of options

133
Q

is an obvious to try lines of reasoning under 103 appropriate when there are a small number of possible choices but the outcome would not have been reasonably predictable?

A

No

134
Q

what factors should be considered when examining claims that contain functional language in order to determine whether the language is ambiguous?

A
  1. Whether there is a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim.
  2. Whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained.
  3. Whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim.
135
Q

Examiners will apply §112(f) to a claim limitation that meets which conditions?

A
  1. The phrase “means for” or “step for” or the non-structural term recited in the claim is modified by functional language.
  2. The phrase “means for” or “step for” or the non-structural term recited in the claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
136
Q

In order to determine whether a word, term, or phrase coupled with a function denotes structure, it is necessary to check whether: [112 mini exam]

A
  1. The specification provides a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art that the term denotes structure.
  2. General and subject matter specific dictionaries provide evidence that the term has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure.
  3. The prior art provides evidence that the term has an art-recognized structure to perform the claimed function.
137
Q

Is it enough to claim a means for performing a particular computer-implemented function and then to disclose a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function?

A

No.

merely reciting a general purpose computer is not enough. In fact, for a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking §112(f), the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. To claim a means for performing a particular computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general-purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming.

138
Q

Is a certified copy of any priority document required for completing an International Application?

A

No

139
Q

an applicant seeking entry into US national phase via PCT has to pay national fee by when?

A

An applicant seeking entry into the US National phase via PCT has to pay the national fee no later than 30 months from the earliest priority date being asserted

140
Q

Is the name of the inventor required to obtain an international filing date for an application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty?

A

No

141
Q

What is not required for filing an international application in the US receiving office?

A

Do not need a filing fee at that time. (The application needs to be in English, At least one applicant must be a US national or legal resided, Application must designate at least one PCT contracting state, A request for treatment as an international application must be included.)

142
Q

On April 3, 2014 you filed an international (PCT) application in the U.S. receiving Office for one of your clients. At the time your client was short of funds and decided to designate only the “Asian Tiger” countries of Malaysia, Indonesia, China and Korea. However, last week a company located in New Zealand approached your client indicating they would license any patent rights, which existed in New Zealand. On April 1, 2015, your client calls, seeking protection in New Zealand. What would be your advice?

A

Do not need to designate any additional countries.

All member countries of WIPO are automatically designated in any PCT applications filed after 1/1/04.

143
Q

can extensions be obtained retroactively in a reexamination?

A

No

144
Q

How can an applicant correct a failure to claim priority in a continuation application?

A

The failure to claim priority in the continuation application can be corrected by obtaining a Certificate of Correction and also filing a Grantable Petition and fee for Late Assertion of Priority.

145
Q

can you file a continuation of a reissue?

A

Yes (apparently)

146
Q

can a competitor and/or the public file a request to see the file of a reexamination?

A

Yes

147
Q

T/F: Failure to respond to an Official Action in reexamination will result in abandonment.

A

False

148
Q

T/F: The automatic surrender of the original patent grant occurs upon issue of the re-issue.

A

True

149
Q

If you can’t find the inventor prior to executing the oath after reasonable efforts what do you do?

A

35 U.S.C. 115(a) says that when one files a patent application under either 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (i.e., a nonprovisional patent application) or enters the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, each inventor must be named and each inventor or joint inventor must execute an oath or declaration unless “otherwise provided.” It is 35 U.S.C. 115(b) that relates to the exception for each inventor to submit an oath or declaration. In lieu of executing an oath or declaration under subsection 115(a), the applicant for patent may provide a “substitute statement.” The substitute statement must identify the individual to whom the statement pertains. Furthermore, the substitute statement must either state that the inventor identified is under an obligation to assign and refused to execute the oath or declaration (see 115(d)(2)(B)) or that the inventor is deceased, legally incapacitated or cannot be found after reasonable effort (see 115(d)(2)(A)).

150
Q

A person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter may make an application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is appropriate. What must be submitted?

A

37 CFR 1.46(b)(2) sets forth the requirements for an applicant who is claiming they have sufficient proprietary interest to file an application. The fee pursuant to § 1.17(g) is required, as well as a showing of such sufficient proprietary interest. Also required is a statement that making the application for patent by a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter on behalf of and as agent for the inventor is appropriate to preserve the rights of the parties.

151
Q

what if the application is made by someone other than the inventor (generally)

A

Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.46(b), if an application is made by a person other than the inventor, the application must contain an application data sheet specifying the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter.

152
Q

T/F: The oath or declaration does not always need to identify each inventor by his or her legal name; nor does the oath or declaration always need to identify a mailing address where the inventor customarily receives mail, and residence.

A

true statement because, as Rule 1.63(b) explains, the oath or declaration must identify the inventor by legal name and provide a mailing address, unless that information is supplied in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) submitted in accordance with 1.76. Thus, it is not necessary for an oath or declaration to contain this information in all instances.

153
Q

How long do you have to correct the ADS?

A

37 CFR 1.76(c) explains that information submitted in an ADS, oath or declaration can be corrected until the issue fee is paid. However, there are some exceptions. Inventorship changes must comply with the requirements of §1.48, foreign priority and domestic benefit information changes must comply with §§1.55 and 1.78, and correspondence address changes are governed by §1.33(a).

154
Q

what makes an applicant eligible to enter the PPH

A

In order to partake in the PPH, it is a requirement that the application with allowable subject matter from a partnering PPH office must share the common earliest date of priority.

In order to be eligible for entry into the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), the applicant must have already received an indication of allowable subject matter in a related patent application from a partnering PPH office. The indication of allowable subject matter can come before the patent actually issues in the Office of Earlier Examination (OEE).

In order to qualify for the PPH, it is required that the application from the Office of Earlier Examination (OEE) have the same priority date as the application filed in the U.S. for which entry into the PPH is sought.

The rule for entry into the PPH says that examination cannot have started in the U.S. application prior to entry into the PPH. This requirement, however, relates to substantive examination. The USPTO has specifically explained: “if you have only received a notice to file missing parts, this would not be considered as substantive examination.” Thus, in this question, you have received but have not yet responded to the Notice of Missing Parts, which means that no substantive examination could possibly have started. Therefore, you could still enter the PPH.

a claim that is narrower than one allowed in the Office of Earlier Examination (OEE) can only be granted if it is a dependent claim, which is dependent upon a claim that is of the same or similar scope as a claim indicated as allowable in the OEE application. It is, however, possible to amend the application to make the claim “sufficiently correspond” to the claim deemed allowable in the OEE.

In those instances where the request for participation in the PPH pilot program does not meet all the requirements, the applicant will be notified and the defects in the request will be identified. The applicant will be given one opportunity to perfect the request in a renewed request for participation. Action on the application by the USPTO will NOT be suspended (37 CFR 1.103) awaiting a renewed request for participation. If the application is picked up for examination after the applicant has been notified of the defects in the request, any renewed request will be dismissed. If the renewed request is perfected and examination has not begun, the request and special status will be granted, the applicant will be notified, and the U.S. application will be advanced out of turn for examination. If the request is not perfected, the applicant will be notified and the application will await action in its regular turn.

155
Q

is this eligible under 101?

The claims cover a GPS satellite navigation system comprising satellites orbiting the Earth that permits a GPS-enabled receiver to detect signals from at least four satellites and use that information to calculate its distance from each satellite and thus its precise position on Earth through trilateration. The claim sets forth the steps of calculating the absolute position, which is a mathematical concept.

A

Yes

relates to Research Corp. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp. (U.S. Patent No. 5,111,310), where the invention presented functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace. So, although the claimed method uses algorithms and formulas, the claim was found eligible.

156
Q

Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect

A

The Federal Circuit explained: “The ’929 patent does not simply claim hepatocytes’ ability to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles. The ’929 patent instead claims a method of producing a desired preparation of multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes. This new and improved technique, for producing a tangible and useful result, falls squarely outside those categories of inventions that are ‘directed to’ patent-ineligible concepts.”

claims would still be patent eligible under the second step, which asks whether, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. In order to be patent eligible under step two, more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in by the scientific community is required in order to transform the claim into something significantly more than a patent upon the concept itself. The Federal Circuit explained that the claims covered an invention that provided a significant improvement for a variety of reasons, and also because the discovery was used to achieve a new and useful preservation process.

157
Q

violation of 37 C.F.R. 11.104(b)

A

failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make decisions regarding the representation.

158
Q

huge mess of a fact pattern of a firm that represented company A and then stopped and then represented company B who wanted to sue company A. Company B had expressed interest in suing company A while the firm was representing company A

A

Pretty much the law firm cannot represent company B. Not even with consent and w/ screening the attorneys that had info:

To arrive at the correct answer, one must very carefully parse 37 C.F.R. 11.109 and 37 C.F.R. 11.110. Rule 11.110 relates to imputed conflicts and allows a firm to continue representing a client even if one or more practitioners would themselves be disqualified for ethical reasons, provided an ethical screen is put in place. If you read Rule 11.110 closely, you will notice that the aspect relevant here pertaining to former clients is (a)(2), which allows an ethical screen to be put in place where the disqualification of the practitioner is required by Rule 11.109(a) or (b). If you then turn to Rule 11.109, you see there are subparts (a), (b) and (c). Subparts (a) and (b) relate to disqualification where representation may be materially adverse to the former client, Rule 11.109(c) requires disqualification where the practitioner possesses some information about the matter. In this situation, the attorneys who provided the enforcement strategy to Identity Secure were given confidential information relating to the validity of the patents in the portfolio. Therefore, the conflict arises under 11.109(c) and cannot be solved with an ethical screen or client waiver.

159
Q

Firm pretty much has two competing clients who are the responsibility of two different attorneys.

A

§ 11.110(a), while practitioners are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by either § 11.107 or § 11.109. The pertinent rule here is § 11.107, which relates to conflicts with current clients. A current conflict exists in this situation because both PhotoDetection and BigFruit are seeking patent claims on the same technology. However, pursuant to § 11.107(b), a practitioner may still engage in representation if: (1) The practitioner reasonably believes that the practitioner will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) The representation is not prohibited by law; (3) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the practitioner in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

In this situation, given that two different patent attorneys are involved, it should be reasonable to believe that competent and diligent representation can be provided to both. The representation is not prohibited by law, and it does not involve the assertion of a claim by one against the other. Therefore, if both give informed consent in writing, this will not be a problem.

160
Q

in what situation MUST a practitioner decline representation/ withdraw and in what situations MAY they withdraw?

A

37 C.F.R. 11.116 relates to declining or terminating representation. Subsection (a) deals with declining representation and Subsection (b) deals with situations where a practitioner may withdraw from representation. Practitioners shall not represent a client and must decline representation, or withdrawal if representation has commenced: (1) if representation would result in a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (2) the practitioner has become physically or mentally impaired to the point the practitioner is unable to represent the client’s interests; or (3) the practitioner has been discharged by the client. Under Subsection (b), which deals with permissive rather than mandatory withdrawals, a practitioner may withdraw from representing a client for a larger variety of reasons… including:

  • The client has used the practitioner’s services to perpetrate a crime or fraud.
  • A client insists upon taking action that the practitioner considers repugnant or with which the practitioner has a fundamental disagreement.
  • The representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the practitioner or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client.
161
Q

37 C.F.R. 11.104(a)

A

equires that practitioners promptly inform the client of a decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required, and reasonably consult with a client about means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.

162
Q

what is a The §1.63 Declaration

A

patent prosecution rules mandate that the required §1.63 oath or declaration state that the person making the oath or declaration has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims. The practice of having a client sign a §1.63 oath or declaration prior to the preparation or completion of the application is plainly contrary to patent prosecution rules and to the Rules of Professional Conduct applicable to registered patent practitioners.

163
Q

ethics model fact pattern: In the Matter of Jeffrey R. Ramberg, Proceeding No. D2017-12.

A

Horowitz undertook joint representation of two applicants in a patent application. Horowitz continued to represent both applicants after she became aware of an inventorship dispute without obtaining informed consent from each to continue the representation. Horowitz named one of the two applicants as the sole inventor on the nonprovisional application that claimed priority to the original application. Horowitz failed to inform the excluded applicant and continued to represent the first applicant in the matter, despite an actual or potential conflict of interest, and without obtaining informed consent from each. Horowitz followed the directions of the applicant who paid the legal fees. Horowitz also represented one of the applicants in a trademark application that was related to the patent application, without obtaining informed consent to the representation. These actions would be violations of 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.107(a)(l)-(2) and (b)(3)-(4) (representing a client when the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; representing a client when the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client; representing a client when the representation involves the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the practitioner in the same proceeding without obtaining consent after full disclosure); and 11.104(a)(l)-(2) and (b) (failing to inform the client of any decision or circumstances with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required; failing to consult with the client about the means by which client’s objectives can be accomplished; failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision).

164
Q

Post Grant Proceedings:

Inter parties review

A

§ Most common - every patent issued is eligible for this
§ You bring evidence that there is a likelihood of an issue under 102 or 103
□ Threshold to show is low
§ Over a course of a year the patent office will determine if the claims live or die
§ Standard is “preponderance of evidence”
§ If it’s a pre-AIA granted patent it starts immediately
§ If its AIA you have to wait 9 months after issuance because have to wait for post grant review period to expire
§ Common questions
□ What happens if you file IPR and district court proceeding at same time?
® The IPR goes forward; the district court proceeding is stayed
§ You can settle these and patent office has to approve of settlement
§ Estoppel provisions
Any issues not raised when you had the opportunity in an IPR are now off the table in any USPTO, ITC, and Court proceeding

Decision of whether to institute an inter partes review is non-appealable*

165
Q

Post Grant Proceedings:

Post grant review (PGR)

A

§ For AIA examined applications only
§ There is a 9 month window when you can challenge a newly issued patent
§ Can be based on any issue - 101, 102, 103, 112
Same estoppel issues will be raised here - if you didn’t bring the issue when you had the chance its off the table in the future

166
Q

How long do you have after enter a non-final decision (i.e. a new grounds of rejection) to respond?

A

a new ground of rejection cannot be considered final for judicial review. When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must either reopen prosecution or request rehearing before the Board. If neither option is pursued, the appeal will be terminated.

Further, where the examiner rejects the claims for the reason cited in the Board’s new ground of rejection, the rejection should be made final. That means that the applicant can now appeal to the Board. In these circumstances, when a final rejection of the claims has been made by the examiner, it is a mistake to believe that the Board will again review the rejection by virtue of the previous appeal. After such a final rejection, an applicant who desires further review of the matter by the Board must file a new appeal to the Board. Such an appeal from the subsequent rejection by the examiner will be an entirely new appeal involving a different ground than the previous appeal, which means that it will be necessary to file a new notice of appeal, appeal brief, and payment of appropriate fees.

167
Q

Can you correct inventorship with a Certificate of Correction with appropriate statement and fee?

A

Yes

correction of inventorship should be accomplished by filing a request for Certificate of Correction if (1) the only change being made is to correct the inventorship; and (2) all parties are in agreement and inventorship is not contested. Such a request to correct inventorship of a patent must be accompanied by (1) the appropriate fee; (2) a statement from each person who is being added as an inventor and each person who is currently named as an inventor either agreeing to the change of inventorship or stating that he or she has no disagreement in regard to the requested change; and (3) a statement from all assignees agreeing to the change of inventorship in the patent.

note: 37 C.F.R. 1.48. pertains to correcting inventorship during the pendency of an application. Furthermore, a petition is no longer required under Rule 48 even to correct inventorship during a pending application

168
Q

What process are you given as a practitioner before you can be suspended at the USPTO?

A

Not much.

A hearing is note required in some instances. Director may suspend the practitioner after reviewing the documentary evidence provided by the OED Director without the practitioner being given a formal opportunity to be heard. This seeming lack of due process is due to the fact that the practitioner has already been afforded due process by the tribunal in the underlying criminal matter. This is a form of reciprocal discipline that allows the Director to immediately suspend practitioners who have been convicted of a serious crime.

an interim suspension is only appropriate where the practitioner has been convicted of a serious crime. In fact, the pertinent rule specifically says: “If the crime is not a serious crime, the OED Director shall process the matter in the same manner as any other information or evidence of a possible violation of any USPTO Rule of Professional Conduct coming to the attention of the OED Director.”

169
Q

you have a foreign client who files an application in Japan 1 year prior to today and they tell you they now want to file in US. Whats the quickest and simplest way to get that filing date?

A

File the copy of the Japanese application before midnight

While the best course of action would be to have obtained an English language translation of the application, that is no longer realistically possible given the hour. Furthermore, you do not absolutely have to file an English translation

As a result of the PLTIA, it is possible to claim priority to a previously filed application for up to 14 months. In order to take advantage of the additional two-month period, the delay must have been unintentional. Here, the facts do not suggest an unintentional delay.

170
Q

refresher on duty to disclose:

A

Everyone involved in the prosecution has a duty to disclose to the USPTO.

However we may get a question where only a certain portion of that group know of a prior art reference. in that narrow instance we say only those that know about the prior art have a duty as it pertains to that prior art.

Rule 56(d) allows those who are not the attorney, agent or inventor to satisfy the duty to disclose by notifying the agent, attorney or inventor.

171
Q

what is the standard the USPTO will use to decide on a petition for inter pares review?

A

The standard that will be used to determine whether the USPTO will initiate review is the “reasonable likelihood” standard.

172
Q

When is a supplemental examination superior to a ex parte reexamination?

A

The AIA amended the patent laws to provide that a patent owner may request supplemental examination of a patent to consider, reconsider, or correct information believed to be relevant to the patent. The supplemental examination will determine whether the information presented in the request raises a substantial new question of patentability. If the information presented in the request raises a substantial new question of patentability, the Office will order ex parte reexamination of the patent.

While filing a reexamination could address the patentability issue, it would not address any potential inequitable conduct problem.

If inequitable conduct is found, all of the claims to the patent are lost because they will be deemed unenforceable. To fix this problem, you need to pursue a supplemental examination. The entire point of supplemental examination is to submit information to the Office so they can consider whether it matters, while at the same time inoculating a patent from a charge of inequitable conduct, or in the terms of the statute, from being “held unenforceable.”

173
Q

Best Mode tricky questions: you have to focus on the best mode of the CLAIMED invention

A

It is true that, since the passage of the AIA, the lack of best mode is no longer an acceptable reason to find a patent claim to be invalid. It is also true that 35 U.S.C. 112(a) still requires best mode to be disclosed. But best mode is not a concept that exists in a vacuum. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) requires the disclosure of the best mode of the claimed invention.

(example explanation from relevant question)
In Claim 1, there is no mention of lemons whatsoever. As such, the fact that, in one embodiment of the invention, the cleaning solution uses lemons, and specifically Seminole County, Florida, lemons, is irrelevant. With respect to Claim 2, however, you have included lemons and you have not disclosed that the preferred lemons come from Seminole County, Florida. We know you have not disclosed this fact in the specification because the question tells us that on the August 27 call your client tells you this for the first time. This also means that you have not engaged in any kind of ethical violation by seeking claims you know you are not entitled to receive, but it also means that you cannot ethically proceed to attempt to obtain Claim 2.

174
Q

use of facsimile generally

A

A Response to an Office Action may be transmitted via facsimile to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The MPEP uses an example where a facsimile transmission begins day 1 at 8:45pm Pacific Time but concludes at 9:05 am Pacific Time the next day. The date of the facsimile would be day 1 if a Certificate of Transmission were used, because an Office Action Response is not on the list of proscribed documents at 1.8(a)(2). Therefore, it can take the benefit of a Certificate of Transmission.

The only application that can be filed via facsimile is a CPA, which is a continuation filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.53(d).

175
Q

difference between the enablement requirement and the written description requirement (both under 112)

A

~written description~

The written description requirement has several policy objectives. “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed.”

“The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed.”

~Enablement~

About enabling POSA to recreate invention without undue experimentation.

176
Q

what if you discover prior art after issue fee is paid? can you file a new IDS?

A

Information disclosure statements filed after payment of the issue fee in an application will NOT be considered but will merely be placed in the application file. MPEP 609.04(b)(IV). If the applicant wants the IDS to be considered, the application may be withdrawn from issue and the applicant may file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) or a continuing application.

IMPORTANT NOTE: There is a distinction here between what is allowed in everyday practice at the USPTO and the material testable on exam day.

Beginning on May 16, 2012, the USPTO started what they call the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) Pilot Program. You are not tested on QPIDS because it is not yet in the MPEP, and the Federal Register Notice announcing the pilot program is not one of the testable documents.

177
Q

Under the authority given him or her by 35 U.S.C. 133, the Director of the USPTO has directed the examiner to set a shortened period for reply to every action. The length of the shortened statutory period to be used depends on the type of reply required.

what is the default to reply to any Office action on the merits? [710.02]

A

3 months

178
Q

are signals eligible under 101?

A

No.

In re Nuijten. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that transitory signals are not patent-eligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit concluded: “A transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten’s is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” Nuijten was, however, granted patent claims covering the process, the device that performed the process, and a storage medium holding resulting signals.

179
Q

does a 102(c) exception (COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS) apply to prior art under 102(a)(1) or a double same-invention double patenting?

A

No.

It will be good for a rejection under 35 USC 103 based on reference X, if reference X is available as prior art only under 35 USC 102(a)(2).

180
Q

can an applicant respond to a rejection citing what a POSA knows by asking for proof?

A

Yes.

MPEP § 2144.03 provides that when an applicant seasonably traverses an officially noticed fact, the examiner may cite a reference teaching the noticed fact and make the next action final.

181
Q

102 rejection review for step plus functions and anticipation equivalents generally

A

“step” plus function limitations shall be construed to cover the corresponding acts disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Accordingly, the step plus function imitation correspondingly includes acts (1)-(5) and their equivalents. Thus, in order to anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose each and every act, or its equivalent, for the step plus function.

182
Q

May an examiner properly make an enablement rejection before construing the claims?

A

No

183
Q

What will happen if you file an RCE without the fee after you file a proper notice of appeal and an appeal brief?

A

The appeal is considered withdrawn. Apparently this also means the claims that were rejected will be canceled and those allowed in the last office action are allowed still. Status of the application is: pending.

184
Q

Prosecution before the primary examiner results in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 was objected to as being allowable except for its dependency from claim 1. Independent claim 3 has been allowed. The rejection of claim 1 is properly appealed to the PTAB. The Board properly affirms the rejection of claim 1. Appellant has filed no response to the decision of the Board, the appellant has taken no action, and the time for filing an appeal to the court or a civil action has expired. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following actions is the most appropriate response by the examiner?

A

The examiner should cancel claims 1 and 2 and allow the application with claim 3 only.

Examiner can’t convert dependent claim 2 into independent form.

See MPEP § 1214.06 under the heading “Claims Stand Allowed.” Where one or more other claims stand allowed, the examiner is not authorized to convert to independent form a dependent claim that has been objected to (but not allowed or rejected) based on its dependency to a rejected claim.

185
Q

can same invention double patenting be overcome?

A

no.

186
Q

How do you appeal the decision of a restriction requirement by an Examiner?

A

Review of a final restriction requirement is only possible as a petitionable matter before a Technology Center Director. It is not an appealable matter to the Board.

187
Q

can an abandoned application be used as prior art?

A

Yes

in MPEP § 2127, under the heading “Abandoned Applications, Including Provisional Applications,” and subheading, “Abandoned Applications Disclosed to the Public Can Be Used as Prior Art,” states “the subject matter of an abandoned application, including both provisional and nonprovisional applications, referred to in a prior art U.S. patent may be relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on that patent if the disclosure of the abandoned application is actually included or incorporated by reference in the patent.

188
Q

for a nonprovisional application to receive a non-shifting (i.e., fixed and immovable) filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b) with no risk of later-submitted “new matter,” all of the following must be filed

A
  • A specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
  • A description pursuant to 37 CFR 1.71.
  • At least one claim pursuant to 37 CFR 1.75.
  • Any drawing required by 37 CFR 1.81(a).

DO NOT NEED: The basic filing fee required by 37 CFR 1.16(a).

189
Q

An applicant submits a product-by-process claim to a shoe made by a series of specific process steps. The claim is rejected over a publication under 35 USC 102 and 103. Assume for this question that the publication reasonably appears to show the identical shoe, but describes a different method of making the shoe. What is the proper procedure to try to overcome the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?

A

Present evidence why the steps of the claimed process produce a patentably different structure.

MPEP § 2113, under the heading “Once A Product Appearing To Be Substantially Identical Is Found And A 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection Made, The Burden Shifts To The Applicant To Show An Unobvious Difference,” states “[o]nce the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.

190
Q

can a failure to designate a contracting State by means of facsimile transmission?

A

No. The application will not be accorded an international filing date because the failure to designate at least one contracting State cannot be cured by a facsimile transmission.

As stated in MPEP § 1817.01, “[a]ll designations must be made in the international application on filing; none may be added later.” The application will not be accorded an international filing date since the practitioner has tried to cure the failure to designate at least one contracting State by filing a paper using facsimile which is not permitted according to 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d). (But, bear in mind since 1/1/04 - a designation is automatic as a part of a PCT filing.)

191
Q

You inventor theorizes and files a patent application. the inventor becomes concerned that the use of moon dust was only a theory and that to obtain patent would mislead the public to conclude that moon dust was actually used and found to be effective. The application has been allowed, but the issue fee has not yet been paid.

A

There is no duty to disclose information regarding how the moon rock formulation was developed to the USPTO.

37 CFR § 1.56; MPEP § 2001.05. 37 CFR § 1.56(a) sets forth a duty to disclose information that is material to patentability. MPEP § 2001.05 states that “information is not material unless is comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (b)(2). If information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office.” The information that moon dust was never actually used is not material as defined under 37 CFR § 1.56(b)(1) or (2) which state that information is material if “(b)(1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office or, (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.” That the use of the moon dust as part of an erasure formulation was only theorized and not actually used is acceptable as is an example for making it. MPEP § 608.01(p), II, under the heading “Simulated or Predicted Test Results Or Prophetic Examples,” states that “[s]imulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. … Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted.” Care, however, must be taken not to state that an experiment was actually run or conducted when it was not and that “[n]o results should be presented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved.” MPEP § 2004, item 8.

192
Q

With respect to establishing “reasonable diligence” for under pre-AIA 35 USC 102(g), what do you need?

A

The entire period during which diligence is required must be accounted for by either affirmative acts or acceptable excuses.

Work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice.

193
Q

what can a third party submit in a pending published application within six months from the publication date where the submission identifies the application to which it is directed by application number and includes the appropriate fee?

A

A list of the sole Japanese language publication submitted for consideration, including the publication date of the publication, a copy of the Japanese language publication and a written English language translation of the pertinent parts of the publication.

37 CFR § 1.290: MPEP 1134.01. The Rule allows that a third party may submit in an application a foreign-language publication and an English language translation of pertinent portions of the publication. The submission must “identify the application to which it is directed by application number,” . . “include the fee (if more than 3 references are submitted) include “a list of the patents or publications submitted for consideration by the Office, including the date of publication of each patent or publication;”. . . a “ copy of each listed patent or publication in written form or at least the pertinent portions;” and an “English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon.” Post 9/16/12, third party submissions are much broader than under old Rule 99.

194
Q

A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2015 to five inventors. The five inventors assigned their entire patent rights to Q Company. Q Company needs to file a reissue application to broaden the claims of the patent. The registered practitioner preparing the application has been unable to locate any of the five inventors to sign the reissue oath or declaration.

what do?

A

File the complete reissue application complying with 37 CFR 1.173(a) and 1.53(b) with an unexecuted reissue declaration listing the names of all the inventors with at least one broadening claim on May 8, 2017.

35 U.S.C. § 251; 37 CFR § 1.53(f); MPEP § 1403. Filing a broadened reissue application with at least one broadening claim prior to the expiration of the two-year time period set in the statute satisfies the diligence provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 251. The executed reissue oath/declaration and the filing fee may be filed at a later time. According to MPEP § 1403, a reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f)

195
Q

what do we look at for product by process claims?

A

MPEP § 2113, under the heading “Product-By-Process Claims Are Not Limited To The Manipulations Of The Recited Steps, Only The Structure Implied By The Steps,” states “‘even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the .product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’

196
Q

Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?

A

2-Dec-99

See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) in general and Example 7 in particular.

197
Q

Can a copy of the international application and the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage as required by 35 USC 371(c) be submitted by facsimile transmission.

A

No

but, facsimile transmission may be used to file certain correspondence in PCT applications. See MPEP § 1805.

only example I found: The Demand for international preliminary examination may be filed by facsimile transmission

198
Q

In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, is the proper question is whether the differences between the prior art and the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?

A

Tricky question, NO

the proper question is whether the invention as a whole, not just the differences, would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2141.02

further, A 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis requires consideration not just of what is literally recited in the claims, but also of any properties inherent in the claimed subject matter that are disclosed in the specification.

199
Q

A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2016. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not under an obligation to assign his invention. In reviewing the filing receipt, the practitioner realizes that the typed name of the inventor contained a typographical error (an “h” was missing) and that the correct spelling was John Jones. What should the practitioner do to incur the least expense?

A

The practitioner should file a request including (1) a corrected application data sheet that identifies each inventor by his or her properly spelled legal name, and (2) the processing fee.

As of September 16, 2012, it is no longer necessary to have distinct procedures for correction of inventorship and for correction to the name of an inventor or to the order of the names of the inventors. 37 CFR 1.48(f) permits an applicant to change or update a particular inventor’s name if his/her legal name has changed (e.g., due to marriage), or an inventor’s name contains an error (e.g., typographical or transliteration mistake or the reversal of family or given names) and allows an applicant to adjust the order of the names of joint inventors (e.g., to control the order of names on a printed patent). 37 CFR 1.48(f) specifically provides that any request to correct or update the name of the inventor or a joint inventor, or the order of the names of joint inventors, in a nonprovisional application must include: (1) an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name in the desired order (identifying the information that is being changed as required by 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2)); and (2) the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(i). In addition to the corrected application data sheet, the request should also identify the desired inventor name change.

200
Q

Where an inventor’s residence is stated correctly in the 37 CFR 1.76 application data sheet and incorrectly in the inventor’s 37 CFR 1.63 oath or declaration what happens?

A

where an application is filed with an application data sheet correctly setting forth the residence of inventor B, and an executed 37 CFR 1.63 declaration setting forth a different incorrect residence of inventor B, the Office will capture the residence of inventor B found in the application data sheet.

201
Q

Applicant filed a provisional patent application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(b) on Tuesday, November 30, 1999. On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, applicant filed a nonprovisional application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(a) that properly claimed priority under 35 USC 119(e) to the filing date of the provisional application. On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, applicant filed an international application for patent in the USPTO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that designated the United States and properly claimed priority to both the provisional and the nonprovisional applications. On Friday, July 28, 2001, applicant filed a national stage application in the USPTO under 35 USC 371, providing all of the requirements under 35 USC 371 and properly claiming benefit to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 USC 119(e) and the nonprovisional application under 35 USC 120. The national stage application was published on Tuesday, January 30, 2002 and issued as a patent on Tuesday, February 4, 2003.

What is the correct filing date to use to determine the patent term?

A

Tuesday, November 28, 2000

The filing date of the nonprovisional application, (. See MPEP § 201.04(b), which states “[t]he [Uruguay Agreement Round Act] provides a mechanism to enable domestic applicants to quickly and inexpensively file provisional applications. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) applicants are entitled to claim the benefit of priority in a given application in the United States. The domestic priority period will not count in the measurement of the 20-year patent term. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(3). Thus, domestic applicants are placed on the same footing with foreign applicants with respect to the patent term.” A provisional application is filed under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and according to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(3), such a filing date is not taken into account in determining patent term.

202
Q

A registered practitioner files a nonprovisional utility application in 2015. In 2017, the practitioner files a continuation-in-part application and claims benefit of the filing date of the 2015 application for the 2017 application. Thereafter, the practitioner amends the 2017 application to include claims that were not present in either the originally filed 2015 application or the originally filed 2017 application. The primary examiner properly concludes that the added claims are not supported by the original disclosure in either application. Which of the following is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

A

MPEP § 2163.01, under the heading “Support For The Claimed Subject Matter In The Disclosure,” states that “[I]f the examiner concludes that the claimed subject matter is not supported [described] in an application as filed, this would result in a rejection of the claim on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or denial of the benefit of filing date of a previously filed application.”

Note on a “new matter” rejection:

MPEP § 2163.01 states that unsupported claims “should not be rejected or objected to on the ground of new matter. As framed by the court in In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981), the concept of new matter is properly employed as a basis for objection to amendments to the abstract, specification or drawings attempting to add new disclosure to that originally presented.”

203
Q

On Thursday, February 6, 2015, applicant files an application for a design patent in Country X, which issues the patent on the filing date. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, what is the last date applicant can file a U.S. design application to avoid any loss of patent rights?

A

Wednesday, August 6, 2015.
See 35 U.S.C. § 172; MPEP § 1504.02. Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). In order for the filing to be timely for priority purposes, the U.S. design patent application must be made within 6 months of the foreign filing.

204
Q

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, for a nonprovisional application to receive a fixed filing date in the USPTO under 37 CFR 1.53(b), What does not need to be filed?

A

-An oath or declaration executed by applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.63. You do need the spec (and description), claim, drawings when required

205
Q

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP , which of the following paper is precluded from receiving the benefit of a certificate of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8?

A
  • An amendment, replying to an Office action setting a period for reply, transmitted by mail with a certificate of mailing to the USPTO from a foreign country.
  • See MPEP § 512, which states “The Certificate of Mailing procedure does not apply to papers mailed in a foreign country.”
206
Q

The sole claim in an application filed by A and having an effective filing date of June 5, 2016, recites an electrical signal amplifier comprising a plurality of germanium transistors connected together in a particular configuration. The claim is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obviousness over a primary nonpatent reference publication (Reference P) in view of a secondary nonpatent reference publication (Reference S). Reference P has an effective date of April 3, 2016, and names A and B as the authors. Reference S has an effective date of December 10, 2015, and names C as the sole author. Reference P discloses an electrical signal amplifier including a plurality of silicon transistors connected together in the same configuration as that set forth in the claim. Reference S discloses a signal amplifier employing germanium transistors connected in a configuration different from the claimed configuration. The applicant does not deny that the references render the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious. Which, if any, of the declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 set forth below should be sufficient under the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP to overcome the rejection?

A
  • An uncontradicted declaration by A asserting that the subject matter relied on by the examiner in reference P constitutes A’s sole invention, with the result that Reference P is not available as prior art against the claim.
  • See MPEP § 717.01 (III), which states “Under certain circumstances an affidavit or declaration may be submitted which attempts to attribute an activity, a reference or part of a reference to the applicant. If successful, the activity or the reference is no longer applicable. . . . An uncontradicted ‘unequivocal statement’ from the applicant regarding the subject matter disclosed in an article, patent, or published application will be accepted as establishing inventorship.
207
Q

A registered practitioner properly recorded an assignment document for application A identifying XYZ Company as the assignee. The document assigns to XYZ Company the “subject matter claimed in Application A.” A proper restriction requirement was made by a primary examiner in application A between two distinct inventions, and the practitioner elected to prosecute one of the inventions. Application A was prosecuted, and later became abandoned. Before the abandonment date of application A, the practitioner filed a complete application B as a proper divisional application of application A. Application B claimed the nonelected invention of Application A, and was published as a U.S. application publication. XYZ Company remains the assignee of application A. What must the practitioner do

A
  • Upon allowance of application B, the practitioner must identify XYZ Company as the assignee in the appropriate space on the Issue Fee Transmittal form for specifying the assignee for application B.
  • MPEP § 306 states, “In the case of a division or continuation application, a prior assignment recorded against the original application is applied to the division or continuation application because the assignment recorded against the original application gives the assignee rights to the subject matter common to both applications.” MPEP § 307 states, “Irrespective of whether the assignee participates in the prosecution of the application, the patent issues to the assignee if so indicated on the Issue Fee Transmittal form PTOL-85B. Unless an assignee’s name and address are identified in item 3 of the Issue Fee Transmittal form PTOL-85B, the patent will issue to the applicant. Assignment data printed on the patent will be based solely on the information so supplied.” A new assignment document need not be recorded for a divisional or continuation
208
Q

An international application is filed in the United States Receiving Office on September 18, 2016. In accordance with the PCT and USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, which of the following will result in the application not being accorded an international filing date of September 18, 2016?

A
  • The application does not contain a claim.
  • Okay if: the description and claims in diff language; the Request is signed by attorney instead of applicant; the sole applicant is a Canadian resident and national; and the application is without fees
  • PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e); 35 U.S.C. § 363; 37 CFR § 1.431(a); MPEP § 1810. Under PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(e), to be accorded an international filing date, an application must have “a part which on the face of it appears to be a claim or claims.”
209
Q

Applicant files a patent application in Japan on January 5, 2000. Applicant files a PCT international application designating the United States on January 5, 2001, based on the Japanese application. The international application is published in English on July 5, 2001. The international application enters the national stage in the United States on September 5, 2001. The USPTO publishes the application on June 6, 2002. The application issues as a United States patent on December 3, 2002. What is its earliest possible 35 USC 102(e) prior art date for the application published by the United States, in view of the amendment to Title 35 by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002?

A
  • Jan. 5 2001
  • 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) provides that a US published application of a national stage of an international application filed on or after November 29, 2000 has a prior art effect as of its international filing date, if the international application designated the United States, and was published in English. Because in the above fact pattern, the international application designated the United States and was published in English, and was filed on or after November 29, 2000, the USPTO published application is entitled to its international filing date of January 5, 2001 for prior art purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1). See Example 4 of MPEP § 706.02(f)(1)
210
Q

The primary examiner has rejected claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the Smith patent in view of the Jones reference. Appellant properly argues that there is no motivation or KSR rationale to combine the teachings of Smith and Jones. The examiner repeats the rejection of claims 1-10 as being “unpatentable over Smith in view of Jones.” The examiner additionally cites a patent to Brown that was necessary to provide motivation for combining the teachings of Smith and Jones. The examiner does not list Brown in the statement of the rejection. Appellant timely appeals to the PTAB, and files a proper appeal brief. The examiner files an examiner’s answer addressing the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Jones, and cites Brown in the argument as providing motivation to combine Smith and Jones. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what will be the most proper decision of the Board?

A
  • The Board will reverse the rejection based on Smith and Jones only.
  • MPEP § 1207.03. If the claimed invention is rendered obvious by Smith in view of Jones and Brown, the statement of rejection must include all three references. Reliance on Brown to support the rejection is a different rejection from a rejection relying only on Smith in view of Jones. In accordance with MPEP § 1208.01, the Board will not consider the teachings of Brown because Brown was used to support the rejection, but was not listed in the statement of the rejection. As stated in MPEP § 1208.01, “Even if the prior art reference is cited to support the rejection in a minor capacity, it should be positively included in the statement of rejection.
211
Q

T/F: If an ADS is filed at the same time as an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.67 and the information supplied in the two documents is inconsistent, the information provided in the ADS will always govern.

A
  • True
212
Q

A patent application has claims 1-10 pending. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Claims 2-6 depend directly from claim 1 while claims 8-10 depend directly from claim 7. Claims 1-10 have been twice rejected by the primary examiner under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Smith patent in view of Jones patent. The applicant has appealed the rejection to the PTAB. In the brief under the “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed” section, appellant states that each of the claims is separately patentable. In the arguments section of the brief, appellant separately argues only claims 1, 4 and 6. What claims will the board consider separately on the merits?

A
  • claims 1, 4, and 6
  • 37 CFR § 41.37; MPEP § 1205.02, under the heading “Appeal Brief Content”. The Board considers the claims as grouped and argued in Applicant’s Brief.
213
Q

T/F: A process is reduced to actual practice when it is successfully performed.

A

True

214
Q

How to abandon your application by filing for nonpulblication and then subsequently filing in a a country that requires 18 month publication

A

The application is abandoned because the practitioner did not rescind the nonpublication request and provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of having filed the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).

215
Q

Registered practitioner Rick drafted a patent application for inventor Sam. The application was filed in the USPTO on May 15, 2016, with a power of attorney appointing Rick. On March 15, 2017, Sam filed a revocation of the power of attorney to Rick, and a new power of attorney appointing registered practitioner Dave. In a non-final Office action dated September 12, 2017, the examiner included a requirement for information, requiring Dave to submit a copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent that was used to draft the application. what would be a complete reply to the requirement for information?

A

A statement by Dave that the information required to be submitted is unknown and is not readily available to Dave.

See 37 CFR § 1.105(a)(3); MPEP § 704.12(b). MPEP § 704.12(b) states “A reply stating that the information required to be submitted is unknown and/or is not readily available to the party or parties from which it was requested will generally be sufficient unless, for example, it is clear the applicant did not understand the requirement, or the reply was ambiguous and a more specific answer is possible.”

216
Q

Markush group

A

See MPEP § 2173.05(h). A Markush group is an acceptable form of alternative expression provided the introductory phrase “consisting of,” and the conjunctive “and” are used.

217
Q

Is a The filing of a provisional patent application specification and drawing for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date proper?

A

No.

MPEP § 502.01. MPEP § 501.01, under the heading “Correspondence Relative To Patents And Patent Applications Where Filing By Facsimile Transmission Is Not Permitted,” identifies among the correspondence not permitted to be filed by facsimile transmission “(B) A national patent application specification and drawing (provisional or nonprovisional) or other correspondence for the purpose of obtaining an application filing date, other than a continued prosecution application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) “

218
Q

Following a restriction requirement and election, a registered practitioner received a first Office action dated Friday, December 1, 2016. The primary examiner indicated that claims 1 to 10 were rejected and claims 11 to 20 were withdrawn from consideration. The first Office action set a 3 month shortened statutory period for reply. On February 28, 2017, the practitioner properly filed an express abandonment in the application and at the same time filed a request for continuing application. In a non-final Office action dated May 1, 2017 in the continuing application, the examiner indicated in that claims 1 to 20, all of the pending claims, are rejected. The practitioner filed a notice of appeal on Monday, July 2, 2017. Is this proper?

A

Yes. the reply is proper.

MPEP § 1204, under the heading “Appeal By Patent Applicant,” states that “[a] notice of appeal may be filed after any of the claims has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. The limitation of ‘twice or finally…rejected’ does not have to be related to a particular application. For example, if any claim was rejected in a parent application, and the claim is again rejected in a continuing application, then applicant will be entitled to file an appeal in the continuing application, even if the claim was rejected only once in the continuing application.”

219
Q

A registered practitioner filed a patent application naming Sam as the sole inventor without an executed declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The USPTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts dated January 3, 2016. The Notice to File Missing Parts set a two-month period for reply. What do you do?

A

Submit an appropriate reply to the Notice to File Missing Parts by filing, on August 3, 2016, a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 executed by Sam, accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) for an extension of five months, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a).

220
Q

With the exception that under 37 CFR 1.53 an application for patent may be assigned a filing date without payment of the basic filing fee, USPTO fees and charges payable to the USPTO requesting any action by the Office for which a fee or charge is payable, are required to be paid, in accordance with the MPEP and USPTO rules and procedure:

A

in advance, that is, at the time of requesting any action.

221
Q

T/F: The establishment of small entity status permits the recipient to pay reduced fees for all patent application processing fees charged by the USPTO.

A

False.

Not all fees are subject to the small entity reduction

222
Q

T/F: The time period set for the payment of the issue fee is statutory and cannot be extended. However, if payment is not timely made and the delay in making the payment is unintentional, upon payment of a fee for delayed payment, it may be accepted as though no abandonment had occurred, but there will be a reduction on the patent term adjustment for the period of abandonment.

A

True

223
Q

T/F: Upon written request, a person citing patents and printed publications to the Office that the person believes has a bearing on the patentability of a particular patent, may request that his or her name remain confidential.

A

True

224
Q

T/F: Regarding a power of attorney or authorization of agent in a patent application: All notices and official letters for the patent owner or owners in a reexamination proceeding will be directed to the attorney or agent of record in the patent file at the address listed on the register of patent attorneys and agents.

A

True

What is false is: The filing and recording of an assignment will operate as a revocation of a power or authorization previously given.

225
Q

A claim in an application recites “[a] composition containing: (a) 35-55% polypropylene; and (b) 45-65% polyethylene.” The sole prior art reference describes, as the only relevant disclosure, a composition containing 34.9% polypropylene and 65.1% polyethylene. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, the primary examiner should properly:

A

Reject the claim under 35 USC 103 as obvious over the prior art reference.

A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and the prior art are close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP § 2144.05.

226
Q

Appellant believes that an examiner’s answer, mailed on November 1, 2016, contains a new ground of rejection, but it is not labeled as such. If an amendment or new evidence is needed to overcome the new ground of rejection, what is the best course of action the appellant should take in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

A

File a timely petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.181 seeking review such that the new ground of rejection in the answer is so designated, after efforts to persuade the examiner to reopen prosecution or remove the new ground of rejection are unsuccessful.

37 CFR § 1.181 - Petition to the Director.

227
Q

In accordance with USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, claims in a patent application may not contain:

A

drawings or flow diagrams.

MPEP § 608.01, under the heading “Illustrations In The Specification,” states “[t]he specification, including any claims…may not contain drawings or flow diagrams.”

see MPEP § 608.01, which states, “The…claims may contain tables only if necessary to conform to 35 U.S.C. 112.”

228
Q

An examiner has advanced a reasonable basis for questioning the adequacy of the enabling disclosure in the specification of your client’s patent application, and has properly rejected all the claims in the application. The claims in the application are drawn to a computer program system. In accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP, the rejection should be overcome by submitting _____________

A

factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone.

See MPEP § 2164.06(c) under the heading “Affidavit Practice (37 CFR 1.132).” Factual evidence directed to the amount of time and effort and level of knowledge required for the practice of the invention from the disclosure alone can rebut a prima facie case of nonenablement.

229
Q

Harriet filed a nonprovisional patent application in the USPTO containing a written assertion of small entity status. If Harriet files a related, reissue application wherein small entity status is appropriate and desired, will it be necessary to specifically establish assertion of such status in the reissue application?

A

Yes

37 CFR § 1.27(c)(4) (“The refiling of an application under § 1.53 as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, including a continued prosecution application under § 1.53(d), or the filing of a reissue application, requires a new assertion as to continued entitlement to small entity status for the continuing or reissue application.”).

230
Q

T/F: In a reissue application, additions and deletions to the original patent should be made by underlining and bracketing, respectively, except for changes made in prior Certificates of Correction and disclaimer(s) of claims under 37 CFR 1.321(a).

A

True

231
Q

A complete continuation application by the same inventors as those named in the prior application may be filed under 35 USC 111(a) using the procedures of 37 CFR 1.53(b) by providing, in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP:

A

A clean copy of the original specification (including one or more claims), any necessary drawings (none containing new matter), a copy of the signed declaration (as filed in the parent application), and all required fees.

232
Q

T/F: After a reexamination proceeding is terminated and the certificate has issued, any member of the public may obtain a copy of the certificate by ordering a copy of the patent.

A

True

233
Q

T/F: An assignee can file a broadening reissue patent.

A

False

234
Q

T/F: In connection with the utility of an invention described in a patent application, A deficiency under 35 USC 101 also creates a deficiency under 35 USC 112, first paragraph.

A

True

235
Q

The claims in a patent application having been twice or finally rejected, the applicant files a timely Notice of Appeal on January 2, 2016. In what situation should the USPTO not notify the applicant that the Appeal Brief is defective and allow him an opportunity to correct the deficiency?

A

The Appeal Brief states that the claims do not stand or fall together, and presents argument as to why the claims are separately patentable, but the primary examiner does not agree with the applicant’s argument.

See MPEP § 1207. If the examiner disagrees with the reasons given, the reason for disagreement should be addressed in the Examiner’s Answer. If the brief includes a statement that a grouping of claims does not stand or fall together but does not provide reasons, [the examiner is to] notify appellant of the non-compliance. If the examiner disagrees with appellant’s statement in the brief that certain claims do not stand or fall together, the examiner explains in the examiner’s answer why the claim grouping listed in the brief is not agreed with and why, if appropriate, e.g., the claims as listed by the appellant are not separately patentable.

236
Q

On January 2, 2016, a registered practitioner filed a patent application with the USPTO for inventor Bock. The application includes a specification and a single claim to the invention, which reads as follows: 1. A new string consisting only of material Z that has the ability to stretch to beyond its initial unstretched length. On June 2, 2016, the practitioner received an Office action from the primary examiner rejecting the claim. The claim is solely rejected under 35 USC 102 in view of Patent A, which discloses a string consisting only of material Z. The Office action states, “Patent A discloses a string consisting only of material Z. Patent A does not expressly teach the stretchability property of the string. Nevertheless, the recited stretchability is inherent in the string of patent A. Accordingly, patent A anticipates the claimed string.” Mr. Bock believes he is entitled to a patent to his new string and authorizes the practitioner to reply to the Office action by arguing that his string stretches to ten times its initial unstretched length, something that patent A does not teach. Since this is not expressly taught in Patent A, the practitioner argues, Patent A cannot anticipate the claimed string. In accordance with USPTO rules and procedures set forth in the MPEP, is the practitioner’s reply persuasive as to error in the rejection?

A

No.

MPEP § 2112, under the heading “Something Which Is Old Does Not Become Patentable Upon The Discovery Of A New Property,” states that “claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.

237
Q

The dependency of each of claims 16-27 reads “any of claims 5-15.” is this proper?

A

As explained in MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading “Multiple Dependent Claims,” subheading “Acceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording” the multiple dependent claim wording of new claims 16-27 is proper. See, for example, “any one of the preceding claims,” and “in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9.”

238
Q

Joan goes to a registered practitioner wanting to know the status of the applications of her competitor Pete. During Joan’s previous relationship with Pete she believes she may have been a coinventor on one of the applications filed by Pete. Pete owns Applications A, B, C and D. Application B is a continuation of Application A and a redacted copy of Application A has been published under 35 USC 122(b). Joan is listed as a coinventor on Application C. Pete has an issued patent that claims priority to Application D. Can she see A?

A

Joan may obtain access to the entire Application A by submitting a written request, since, notwithstanding the fact that only a redacted copy of Application A has been published, a member of the public is entitled to see the entire application upon written request.

A redacted copy of the application was used for publication purposes, and 37 CFR § 1.14(a)(1)iii: provides that “If a redacted copy of the application was used for the patent application publication, the copy of the specification, drawings, and papers may be limited to a redacted copy.”

239
Q

T/F: In those appeals in which an oral hearing has been confirmed and either the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences or the primary examiner has indicated a desire for the examiner to participate in the oral argument, oral argument may be presented by the examiner whether or not the appellant appears.

A

T

240
Q

A first Office action on the merits rejecting Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious in view of reference A set a three month shortened statutory period for reply. A registered practitioner files a timely response (without an extension of time) to the first Office action amending Claim 1 to include a limitation not found in reference A or any other prior art of record. However, the limitation also lacks support in applicant’s original disclosure, i.e., it is new matter. Which of the following courses of action, if taken by the primary examiner, would be in accord with the USPTO rules and the procedures set forth in the MPEP?

A

Consider the new matter and treat Claim 1, determining whether the invention as claimed with the new matter, would have been obvious in view of reference A, and reject Claim 1 under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for lack of support in the original disclosure for new matter.

MPEP § 2143.03, which requires the examiner to consider new matter

241
Q

is this appropriate?: Incorporating non-essential material by reference to a hyperlink.

A

No

242
Q

Evidence that a claim may not comply with 35 USC 112(b) occurs in accordance with the USPTO rules and the procedure set forth in the MPEP where:

A

Remarks filed by applicant in a reply or brief regarding the scope of the invention differ and do not correspond in scope with the claim.

243
Q

T/F: A person being sued for infringement may file a request for Ex-parte reexamination without first obtaining the permission of the Court in which the litigation is taking place.

A

True

244
Q

T/F: Matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent may be used as prior art as of the patent date.

A

True

As explained in MPEP § 901.01, the “matter canceled from the application file wrapper of a U.S. patent may be used as prior art as of the patent date in that it then constitutes prior public knowledge under 35 U.S.C. 102(a),

245
Q

Where to look for prior art details on domestic and international applications, abandoned apps, admissions by inventor

A

MPEP 2100

246
Q

Where to look for example timelines of international applications

A

MPEP 700

247
Q

Where to look for petition to make special details

A

MPEP 700

248
Q

Where to look for small entity status

A

MPEP 509

249
Q

Inter Partes Reexamination

A

MPEP 2600