2003 oct Flashcards
In a reexamination proceeding a non-final Office action dated November 8, 2001 set a shortened statutory period of 2 months to reply. The patent owner, represented by a registered practitioner, filed a response on March 7, 2002, which included an amendment of the claims. No request for an extension of time was received. As of May 8, 2002, which of the following actions would be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
MPEP § 2268. The patent owner will need to file a petition for entry of late papers in order to have their response entered, considered and acted upon. According to MPEP 2268, “[p]ursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(d), an ex parte reexamination proceeding is terminated if the patent owner fails to file a timely and appropriate response to any Office . . . An ex parte reexamination proceeding terminated under 37 CFR 1.550(d) can be revived if the delay in response by the patent . . . was unavoidable in accordance with 37 CFR 1.137(a), or unintentional in accordance with 37 CFR 1.137(b).”
Application A was filed after November 29, 2000. Reference X and application A were commonly owned at the time the invention of application A was made. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP the prior art exclusion of 35 USC 103(c) can be properly invoked to obviate which of the following rejections?
MPEP § 706.02(l) et seq. In accordance with proper USPTO policy and procedure, the prior art exclusion of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) can only be invoked when the reference only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), or 35 USC 102(e) for applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, the application and the reference were commonly owned, or subject to an assignment to the same person, at the time the invention was made, and the reference was used in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
rejection = 700
706.02(l) Rejections Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Using Prior Art Under Only Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (e), (f), or (g)
***A utility application filed in May 2001 has been prosecuted through a second action final rejection. In the final rejection some claims were allowed and other claims were finally rejected. Which of the following accords with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP for a proper reply to a second action final rejection in the utility application?
(A) An amendment canceling all rejected claims and complying with 37 CFR 1.116.
(B) Only a Notice of Appeal.
(C) The appropriate fee for a request for continued examination (RCE).
(D) A continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).
(E) All of the above.
search each option in different chapters
(A) is the most correct answer. The filing of an amendment complying with 37 CFR § 1.116 is a proper reply under 37 CFR § 1.113 to a final rejection. See MPEP § 714.13, under the heading “Entry Not A Matter of Right,” which states, in pertinent part , “A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 is limited to: (A) an amendment complying with 37 CFR 1.116.” (B) is not the most correct answer because the Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the appeal fee required by 37 CFR § 1.17(b). (C) is not the most correct answer because the RCE must be accompanied by a submission (i.e., an amendment that meets the reply requirement of 37 CFR § 1.111). (D) is not the correct answer because CPA practice does not apply to utility or plant applications if the prior application has a filing date on or after May 29, 2000. See MPEP § 706.07(h), paragraphs I and IV.
On January 3, 2003, a registered practitioner filed a continuation application that includes a benefit claim to a prior-filed application. The practitioner simultaneously filed in the prior- filed application an express abandonment in favor of a continuing application. The prior application contained five drawing figures described in the specification. However, the continuation application contains only four of the five drawing figures. The specification of the continuation application did not include a complete description of the missing drawing figure. A postcard from the USPTO, listing the contents of the continuation application, contains a note that only four drawing figures were received. The practitioner inadvertently omitted one of the drawing figures mentioned in the specification when he filed the continuation application. The missing drawing figure shows a claimed feature of the invention. On February 10, 2003, the practitioner received a Notice of Omitted Item(s) properly according a filing date of January 3, 2003 for the continuation application without the missing drawing figure and notifying the applicant that the drawing is missing. Which of the following procedures for filing the missing drawing would comply with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for according the continuation application a January 3, 2003 filing date with the five drawing figures that were present in the application?
The practitioner files the missing drawing figure in response to the Notice of Omitted Item(s) within the time period set forth in the notice.
The practitioner files the missing drawing figure and an amendment to the specification to add a complete description of the missing drawing figure in response to the Notice of Omitted Item(s) within the time period set forth in the notice.
The practitioner files an amendment to cancel the description of the missing drawing figure from the specification of the continuation application.
If the continuation application as originally filed includes an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application to which the benefit is claimed, the practitioner can file the missing drawing figure any time prior to the first Office action.
The practitioner files the missing drawing figure accompanied by a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) with the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) only alleging that the drawing figure indicated as omitted was in fact deposited with the USPTO with the application papers.
MPEP § 201.06(c), under the heading “INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE”, subheading “B. Application Entitled to a Filing Date,” states that “[i]f the application as originally filed includes a proper incorporation by reference of the prior application(s), an omitted specification page(s) and/or drawing figure(s) identified in a “Notice of Omitted Item(s)” may be added by amendment provided the omitted item(s) contains only subject matter in common with such prior application(s). In such case applicant need not respond to the “Notice of Omitted Item(s).” Applicant should submit the amendment adding the omitted material prior to the first Office action to avoid delays in the prosecution of the application.” (A) and (B) are incorrect because the application filing date will be the date of the filing of the missing drawing figure. See MPEP § 601.01(g).
Patent application A was filed on January 12, 1995, containing claims 1-10. A primary examiner rejects the claims under 35 USC 102(b) as being anticipated by a U.S. patent issued on June 2, 1992. The rejection also relies on a technical paper published March 12, 1993 to show that a characteristic is inherent in the patent, although not expressed in its disclosure. According to the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following actions is most likely to overcome the rejection?
Amending the specification of application A to claim priority under 35 USC 120 by a specific reference to a prior copending application B that was filed before June 2, 1992 by the same inventor and discloses the invention claimed in at least one claim of application A in the manner provided by the first paragraph of 35 USC 112.
Submitting arguments pointing out that the rejection under 35 USC 102(b) relies on more than one reference.
(D) is most correct. MPEP § 706.02(b) (8th ed., Rev. 1) states that “[a] rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) may be overcome by…(C) perfecting priority under…35 U.S.C. § 120 by amending the specification of the application to contain a specific reference to a prior application…”
(E) is incorrect because to serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also MPEP § 2131.01, “Multiple Reference 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections.”
A registered practitioner filed a utility patent application on May 15, 2000 pursuant to 35 USC 111(a) claiming a detergent composition. On May 15, 2002 the Office mailed a non-final Office action setting a 3-month period for reply. A proper reply was mailed on August 15, 2002 by first-class mail with sufficient postage to the USPTO. The reply was received by the USPTO on September 15, 2002. On September 30, 2002, the Office mailed a final Office action. On October 15, 2002, the Office received a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) meeting all of the requirements of 37 CFR 1.114. On October 30, 2002, the USPTO mailed a Notice of Allowance in view of the RCE and amendment. The utility application issued on February 11, 2003. Which of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP concerning the amount of additional term applicant X would receive because of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)?
The patentee would not earn any additional time because the application was filed prior to May 29, 2000 and the filing of the RCE would not make the application eligible for PTA.
MPEP § 2730 (quoting section 1.702(f)). The application was filed prior to May 29, 2000 and is ineligible for the provisions of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). Moreover, the filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 35 U.S.C. § 132(b) and 37 CFR § 1.114 does not cause an application filed before May 29, 2000 to be entitled to the benefits PTA under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) and 37 CFR §§ 1.702-1.705. See MPEP § 2730.
When, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, is a supplemental oath or declaration treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312?
When filed in a nonprovisional application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
When filed in a reissue application at any point during the prosecution.
When filed in a nonprovisional application after the payment of the Issue Fee.
When filed in a reissue application after the Notice of Allowance has been mailed.
(A) and (D).
(D) is the most correct answer.
MPEP § 714.16 (Amendment After Notice of Allowance, 37 CFR 1.312), third paragraph, states “a supplemental reissue oath or declaration is treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 because the correction of the patent which it provides is an amendment of the patent, even though no amendment is physically entered into the specification or claim(s).” Answer (A) is incorrect because a supplemental oath or declaration is not treated as an amendment under 37 CFR 1.312 except when submitted in a reissue. See MPEP § 603.01. Answer (B) is incorrect because a supplemental oath or declaration in a reissue will be treated as an amendment under 37 CFR § 1.312 only if filed after allowance. Answer (C) is incorrect because amendments filed after the date the issue fee has been paid are no longer permitted under 37 CFR § 1.312. (E) is wrong because (A) is correct.
The practitioner argued that Patent A cookie box keeper does not render obvious the claimed subject matter wine bottle because there is no suggestion of a plastic insert to keep a wine bottle from falling and breaking in a shopping cart. Which of the following best explains why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP, the examiner should or should not be persuaded by the practitioner’s argument?
no; The difference in objectives does not defeat the case for obviousness because, as MPEP § 2144 states, the “reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
A registered practitioner receives an Office action for Application X, a patent application filed after November 29, 1999. The action contains a rejection of all the claims as being obvious under 35 USC 103(a) over Patent A in view of Patent B. Patent A is only available as prior art under 35 USC 102(e). Patent B is available under 35 USC 102(b). The practitioner seeks to disqualify Patent A as prior art under 35 USC 103(c). Which of the following would be sufficient evidence to disqualify Patent A as prior art in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
A declaration signed by an employee of Corporation K, who is not empowered to act on behalf of Corporation K, stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the claimed invention and Patent A were commonly owned by Corporation K.
A declaration signed by the inventor of Patent A stating that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, the invention claimed in Application X and the invention claimed in Patent A were both subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
A statement by the inventor Jones, the sole inventor of Application X, saying that at the present time, Application X and Patent A are commonly owned.
A statement by the practitioner stating that Application X and Patent A were, at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, commonly owned by the same person.
A statement by inventor Jones, the sole inventor of Application X, saying that at the time the invention claimed in Application X was made, Jones owned a majority interest in Patent A.
(B) or (D) is accepted as the correct answer. As to (B) and (D), see MPEP § 706.02(l)(2), under the heading “II. Evidence Required To Establish Common Ownership.” (B) is accepted because applicants, e.g., inventors, have the best knowledge of the ownership of their applications, and because their statement of such is sufficient evidence because of their paramount obligation of candor and good faith to the USPTO.
A registered practitioner filed a utility application on February 11, 2002. On April 4, 2002, the practitioner filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) in the application. The practitioner received a notice of allowance dated January 3, 2003 soon after it was mailed. When discussing the application with the practitioner on January 21, 2003, and before paying the issue fee, the client notices for the first time that a reference, which is one of many patents obtained by the client’s competitor, was inadvertently omitted from the IDS. The client has been aware of this reference since before the application was filed. The client is anxious to have this reference appear on the face of the patent as having been considered by the USPTO. Which of the following actions, if taken by the practitioner, would not be in accord with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP?
Before paying the issue fee, timely file an IDS citing the reference, along with the certification specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e), and any necessary fees.
Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, accompanied by the fee for filing an RCE, and an IDS citing the reference.
Within three months of the mail date of the notice of allowance, without paying the issue fee, timely file a continuing application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
After paying the issue fee, timely file a petition to withdraw the application from issue to permit the express abandonment of the application in favor of a continuing application, a continuation application under 37 CFR 1.53(b), an IDS citing the reference, and any necessary fees.
After paying the issue fee, timely file a petition to withdraw the application from issue to permit consideration of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, the fee for filing an RCE, and an IDS citing the reference.
A
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.
A registered practitioner filed a patent application in the Office in 1999. Following examination and a final rejection, the practitioner timely filed a proper notice of appeal and a proper appeal brief in the application wherein claims 1-3 stand rejected, claims 4 and 5, which depend from claim 1, stand objected to as depending from a rejected claim but are otherwise allowable, and claims 6-10 stand allowed. The appeal involves claims 1-3. After the brief was filed but prior to a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the practitioner filed a request for continued examination (RCE) with a submission in accordance with 37 CFR 1.114 without paying the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e). In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what effect does the filing of the RCE without the fee set forth in Rule 1.17(e) have on the application under appeal?
The application is abandoned.
The application is still pending and under appeal awaiting a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, because the RCE was improper.
The application is still pending; the appeal is considered withdrawn and the application will be passed to issue with claims 1-3 canceled and claims 4-10 allowed.
The application is still pending; the appeal is considered withdrawn and the application will be passed to issue with claims 1-5 canceled and claims 6-10 allowed.
The appeal is withdrawn; the application is returned to the primary examiner and prosecution is reopened as to claims 1-10.
(D) is the correct answer. See MPEP §§ 706.07(h), under the heading “X. After Appeal But Before Decision By Board,” and 1215.01. As explained in MPEP § 1215.01, “The filing of an RCE will be treated as a withdrawal of the appeal by the applicant, regardless of whether the RCE includes the appropriate fee or a submission.” Thus, the filing of the RCE without the fee results in the withdrawal of the appeal in this application and passage of the application to issue with the allowed claims 6-10 after the cancellation of both rejected claims
proper multiple dependent claim?
Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which …
E
Answer (D) is incorrect. See MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading “B. Unacceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording,” and subheading “2. Claim Does Not Refer to a Preceding Claim,” second example. A proper multiple dependent claim depends only from preceding claims.
A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a client’s utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of
action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
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).
The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request before filing the application in Japan. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The applicant should file an amendment to the specification of the U.S. application, adding the recent improvements to the disclosure in the specification. The application is abandoned because the applicant did not rescind the nonpublication request by notifying the Office under 37 CFR 1.213(c) within the appropriate time. The applicant must now file a petition and fee to revive under 37 CFR 1.137(b).
The applicant could today notify the USPTO of the foreign filing. It is not necessary to file a petition and fee to revive for the application to continue to be examined in the USPTO.
A
(D) is not correct. The applicant is required to provide notice of foreign filing, not merely rescind the nonpublication request within the appropriate time.
- A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an “Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application,” dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?
Yes. The application will be accorded a filing date of January 8, 2003.
Yes. The application will be accorded an international filing date of February 10, 2003.
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.
No. The application was given a one-month period for response. The practitioner would have had to have filed the response on Friday, February 7, 2003 in order to have been timely.
None of the above.
(C) is the correct answer. 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d); MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)); and MPEP §1817.01. 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
Inventor Tip, a scientist in a pencil research laboratory, theorized that, based on the abrasive properties of moon dust, a highly efficient erasure can be made by adding a trace amount of moon dust to a normal pencil erasure formulation. Point, in the Sales department, determined that this would be perfect for a high end product. A U.S. patent application has been filed claiming a pencil erasure formulation with a trace amount of moon dust. An example of how to make the formulation with specified percentages of moon dust is presented therein. Thereafter, Tip learns about the duty to disclose information and he recalls signing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 stating that he had reviewed and understood the contents of the specification including the claims. Tip 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. Which of the following is most in accord with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
10/15/2003 USPTO Reg. Exam.
5 Afternoon Session (Nbr. 456 Ser. 203)
Point is under a duty to disclose material information to the USPTO.
Tip is under a duty to disclose his concern regarding the moon rock information to the USPTO.
Both Point and Tip are under a duty to disclose material information to the UPSTO.
There is no duty to disclose information regarding how the moon rock formulation was developed to the USPTO.
Inasmuch as the application is allowed, an appropriate Request for Continued Prosecution pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 needs to be filed accompanied by a information disclosure regarding the possibility of rejections under 35 USC 101, and 112, first paragraph.
(D) is the most correct answer. 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 b y 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.
(E) is incorrect. As there is no requirement that it be explicitly stated that an invention has or has not been actually conducted, as noted in the explanation of (D), the prosecution need not be continued for the purpose of supplying an information disclosure statement regarding the development of the moon rock erasure formulation.
In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following can a third party submit in a pending published application within two 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 list referencing a videotape and copy of the tape showing that the process claimed in the application was in use more than one year before the filing date of the application.
A U.S. patent issued more than one year before the filing date of the application and a written explanation of the patent made by the third party on the patent.
A publication with a publication date more than one year before the filing date of the application and including underlining made by the third party on the publication.
A protest raising fraud and inequitable conduct issues.
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.
(E) is the most correct answer. 37 CFR § 1.99; Rule 1.99
provides that a third party may submit in a published 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 set forth in § 1.17(p);” 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.”
(B) is incorrect. A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99 may not include explanations.
A U.S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001 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. Today is May 8, 2003. Which of the following should the practitioner do to enable the applicant to broaden the patent claims in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(A) Wait to file the reissue application until the first day the signatures of all five inventors can be obtained. At that time, pay the filing fee and file a petition seeking May 8, 2003 as the filing date. File with the petition a showing of the unavailability of all inventors until the filing of the application.
(B) Wait to file the reissue application until the signatures of at least three inventors can be obtained. At that time, file a petition seeking May 7, 2003 as the filing date accompanied by a showing of the unavailability of all inventors on May 8th. Payment of the filing fees may be postponed until receipt of a decision on the petition.
(C) File the reissue application on May 8, 2003, presenting only the claims in the patent, and include a listing of inventors, but not pay the filing fee at the time of filing.
(D) Wait to file the reissue application until the signature of one of the inventors has been obtained since at least one inventor is needed to show a lack of deceptive intent on the part of the applicants.
(E) 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, 2003.
(E) is the most correct answer. 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). The reissue applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01.
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)?
December 2, 1999
asking about how to determine 102(e) reference date
MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) Examination Guidelines for Applying References Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, 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.
(2) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, an inventor’s assertion the he has discovered the source or cause of an identified problem should never be considered.
(3) 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.
(A) is incorrect, because the proper question is whether the invention as a whole, not just the differences, would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading “The Claimed Invention As A Whole Must Be Considered
2 is incorrect because an examiner should consider such assertions by an inventor as part of the “subject matter as a whole.”
A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. 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. The filing receipt was recently received, indicating that the application will be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004. 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. Which of the following would be the course of action at the least expense to correct the error in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
The practitioner should file a request under 37 CFR 1.48 to correct the inventorship of the application with a new declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 signed by John Jones (with the correct spelling of this name), a statement by Mr. Jones as to how the error occurred and that the error was without deceptive intention, and the processing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(q).
The practitioner should file a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 and the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), requesting correction of the spelling of the inventor’s name.
The practitioner should file a request for a corrected filing receipt and a separate letter to the Office explaining that the declaration contains a typographical error, that the correct spelling of the inventor’s name is John Jones, and requesting correction of the Office records.
The practitioner should expressly abandon the application, and file a continuation with a new declaration with the correct spelling.
The practitioner should call the examiner and tell the examiner that the inventor’s name is wrong, and ask for the examiner to change the name on the declaration.
(C) is the most correct answer. See MPEP § 605.04(b), which states “Except for correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name, a request to have the name changed to the signed version or any other corrections in the name of the inventor(s) will not be entertained…When a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor’s name is discovered during pendency of an application, a petition is not required, nor is a new oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 needed. The U.S.[PTO] should simply be notified of the error and reference to the notification paper will be made on the previously filed oath or declaration by the Office.”
A dependent claim which merely repeats a limitation that appears in the claim on which it depends is properly rejected under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112.
false;
(C) is incorrect. MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading “II. Treatment Of Improper Dependent Claims,” states “[c]laims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) by using form paragraph 7.36.” The claim should not be rejected. Further as for (C), MPEP § 608.01(n), under heading “III. Infringement Test,” states “[a] dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, simply because there is a question as to (1) the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim, or (2) whether the further limitation in fact changes the scope of the dependent claim from that of the claim from which it depends. The test for a proper dependent claim under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is whether the dependent claim includes every limitation of the claim from which it depends. The test is not one of whether the claims differ in scope.”
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.
true
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, 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?
MPEP § 1504.02. 35 U.S.C. § 172 provides that the time specified in 35 U.S.C. 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. Thus, to avoid a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), the U.S. design patent application must be made within six months of the foreign filing
- A registered practitioner files an application on the client’s discovery that adding silica to a known plastic composition containing the flame retardant, X, results in increased flame retardance. The application claims a composition comprising the known plastic composition containing X and also silica. The primary examiner rejects the claim on the basis that applicant admits that X was a known flame retardant and that there is no evidence of improved flame retardance. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, a proper reply could include which of the following argument(s) to rebut and overcome the rejection?
The examiner cannot rely on admitted prior art.
The examiner has not shown that the prior art appreciated applicant’s discovery of silica to be a flame retardant.
The examiner has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness due to lack of motivation in the prior art or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art for adding silica to the known plastic composition.
The applicant does not have to show an improved or unexpected result for the claimed invention.
(C) and (D).
c+d
Regarding (C) MPEP 2142 under the heading “ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF OBVIOUSNESS,” states “To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, and not based on applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding (D) MPEP § 2142 states “The examiner bears the initial burden of factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of obviousness. If the examiner does not produce a prima facie case, the applicant is under no obligation to submit evidence of nonobviousness.
