The USPTO has published Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. This Interim Guidance went into effect yesterday, July 27, 2010, supersedes previous guidance on subject matter eligibility, and is to be retroactively applied to all pending applications. The Interim Guidance is available here (in html) and here (in pdf).

The Interim Guidance includes some illustrative claims and lists of factors relevant to determinations of subject matter eligibility.  I am confident that many of the better patent law related blogs will thoroughly discuss the Interim Guidance in the coming days, and I leave it to my readers to explore those discussions (several of the better patent law related blogs are listed in my blogroll at the bottom of this page).  The remainder of this post concerns a few aspects of the Interim Guidance that caught my attention and might be of immediate and practical use in a response to a subject matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Firstly, I could not help but notice the following instruction to all Examiners:

Under the principles of compact prosecution, each claim should be reviewed for compliance with every statutory requirement for patentability in the initial review of the application, even if one or more claims are found to be deficient with respect to the patent eligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, Office personnel should state all non-cumulative reasons and bases for rejecting claims in the first Office action.

Secondly, the Interim Guidance warns Examiners to:

… avoid focusing on issues of patent eligibility under Sec. 101 to the detriment of considering an application for compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 102, 103, and 112, and should avoid treating an application solely on the basis of patent eligibility under Sec. 101 except in the most extreme cases.

For those who are regular readers of this blog, you know how I view the USPTO’s policy of compact prosecution as a valuable offensive tool. So, it is reassuring to see the Office reemphasize its importance. My earlier blog post on the policy of compact prosecution with examples of how to use it follows this link.

A Friendly Reminder
Keep in mind that the Interim Guidance is merely guidance.  It DOES NOT constitute substantive rule making and hence does not have the force and effect of law. This means that any perceived failure by Office personnel to follow this guidance is neither appealable nor petitionable.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

When an Office action is issued by the USPTO, the time period for filing a reply begins.  If a reply is not filed within the period specified in the Office action, the application is technically abandoned by operation of Rule.  An applicant can usually buy an extension of up to five additional months, however, so long as the statutory limit of six months is not exceeded.

Extensions of time may be automatically authorized at the time an application is filed or requested as needed during prosecution via a petition.  In only a few circumstances is an actual petition required, however, because in most circumstances the mere payment of the appropriate extension fee is treated as a constructive petition for an extension.

The Rules
Extensions of time are controlled by 37 CFR 1.136 and discussed in Section 710.02(e) of the MPEP.  These should be one’s primary resources for petitions for extensions.

37 CFR 1.136 provides for two distinct procedures to request an extension. The appropriate procedure will depend upon the circumstances, but virtually all extensions are requested under 37 CFR 1.136(a), which permits extension of up to 5 months for a fee, with a few exceptions.  When the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) are not available, however, an extension must be sought under 37 CFR 1.136(b), which is far more burdensome (section (b) extensions are only granted for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time).  Extensions under 37 CFR 1.136(b) are very rare, and the remainder of this post omits their discussion.

Regarding the need for a written request for an extension, 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3) provides that:

• a written request may be submitted in an application that is an authorization to treat any concurrent or future reply that requires a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely, as incorporating a petition for extension of time for the appropriate length of time;
• an authorization to charge all required fees, fees under 37 CFR 1.17, or all required extension of time fees will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent or future reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely; and
• submission of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(a) will be treated as a constructive petition for an extension of time in any concurrent reply requiring a petition for an extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to be timely.

Here, 37 CFR. 1.136(a)(3) serves as a “safety net” when the appropriate extension fee is paid but an actual petition is not submitted.

The Petition Process
The process of obtaining an extension during ex parte prosecution in the USPTO is a fairly informal one. It is only necessary to petition for the extension and to pay the appropriate fee.   It is neither necessary to present reasons justifying the extension nor to request the extension in advance.  Also, this petition may even be combined with a concurrently filed response/submission (examples below).  Moreover, because of constructive petitions (discussed below), in most situations all that is required is the payment of the appropriate fee.

Petitions and Constructive Petitions
The necessity for an actual petition for extension turns on whether there is a concurrently filed reply.

When an applicant is only paying fees, an actual petition for an extension of time is required.  (See USPTO Advisory of 28 June 2010).

When an applicant is filing a concurrent reply, an actual petition is not required.  All that is necessary is the concurrent payment of the appropriate extension fee.  This is because the Office treats the submission of the extension fee as a constructive petition for an extension of time, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a)(3) (in the event that the applicant did not previously authorize the USPTO to treat any reply that requires a petition for an extension of time as incorporating a petition for the appropriate extension of time).  A combined concurrent reply and petition may be prudent, however (see additional point #2 below).

Likewise, when filing a continuation application, a petition is not required.  Any necessary extension fee must, however, be submitted in the parent application.  This is because the filing of a continuing application within the extended time period is considered a concurrent reply.  Thus, a submission of the extension of time fee in the parent application will be accepted as a constructive petition for an extension of time if a continuing application is filed within the extended period.

Examples of Petitions From the MPEP

1.  The applicant herewith petitions the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to extend the time for reply to the Office action dated ____ for ____ month(s) from ____ to ____.  Submitted herewith is a check for $____ to cover the cost of the extension.

2.  The applicant herewith petitions the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to extend the time for reply to the Office action dated ____ for ____ month(s) from ____ to ____ . Please Charge my deposit account number ____ , in the amount of $ ____ to cover the cost of the extension. Any deficiency or overpayment should be charged or credited to the above numbered deposit account.

An Additional Example of Petition

3. Applicant hereby respectfully requests that the Office extend the period for filing a reply in the above identified application __ month(s), in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).  Applicants have submitted concurrently herewith the necessary fee of ___ [the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(a)].

Examples of Petitions Combined as Part of a Response

4.   Applicant petitions to extend the time for response to the Office Action dated May 1, 2009, for two months from August 1, 2009, up to and including October 1, 2009. Payment of the required extension fee is submitted herewith. Please charge any deficiency or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account ____.  In response to the Office Action, please amend the present application as follows.

5. In response to the Office Action issued in this application and dated 03/03/2010, having a two-month extended due date for response set to expire on 08/03/2010, the fee for a two-month extension of time being paid concurrently herewith, please amend the present application as follows.

A Few Additional Points

1. The USPTO strongly prefers the filing of an actual petition whenever an extension of time is necessary, despite the USPTO’s treatment of a fee submission as a constructive petition.

2. Consider including in every petition for extension of time an authorization to charge a deposit account for any additional fees required.  If a petition for an extension of time requests an insufficient period of extension, but the period for reply may be further extended, it is Office practice to treat the petition for extension of time as requesting the correct period of extension – so long as the petition or application contains an authorization to charge extension fees or fees under 37 CFR 1.17 to a deposit account.  See MPEP § 710.02(e).

3. When a request for extension of time is granted, the due date is computed from the date stamped or printed on the Office action, as opposed to the original due date. See MPEP § 710.01(a).

4. Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are governed by 37 CFR. 1.550 and require a showing of cause and must be requested before the expiration of time period for response.

5. An extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136 is not necessary when submitting a supplemental reply to an Office action if a complete first reply was timely filed in reply to the Office action.  710.02(e)

Additional Resources/Related Links
1.  The USPTO’s present fee schedule
2.  The USPTO recent advisory about petitions for extensions of time and EFS-Web
3.  The USPTO’s fillable Petition for Extension of Time form

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

For those of you who have followed this blog over the years, welcome to version 3.0! This site has been quiet for the past several weeks while it underwent an overhaul, which included both a new, custom theme and a WordPress upgrade. I also used this time to take a break from posting and regain some focus.  Sometimes, one just has to wait for inspiration to write about prosecuting patents.

What I Hoped To Accomplish
My goal was a cleaner, brighter, and less cluttered site that was more easily searchable. There is a lot of useful content on this site going back several years, but it could be a chore to find with the old theme.  After all, the posts you find here are intended to be a reference of sorts.

What’s New
In addition to improving the overall navigation and function, I have endeavored to enhance the searchability of this site.  So, I’ve added a site search widget to the sidebar and an enhanced Navigation Bar (above) with specific tabs for some of the more popular topics from the past three years.  And, for my many international readers, I have also added a translation widget to the sidebar.

To make sharing posts a little easier, I have added to the end of every post sharing buttons that permit easy email, Facebook and Twitter sharing.

To share a few non-patent law related links that I think might be of interest to my readers, along with some links to the technology I use, I have added an informational footer below.

Finally, for my readers who use Facebook, I have created a Facebook page for this blog.  You can become a fan and follow the blog by selecting the Facebook link in the footer.

What’s Next
Now that the overhaul is complete, you can expect a return to new posts on a more regular basis.  As always, I encourage you to keep up to date by grabbing the RSS feed or by subscribing via email.  The easiest way to do that is to select the appropriate link in the “Subscribe to PatentablyDefined” section of the sidebar.

May I Ask A Favor?
I hope that you find the posts on this site both interesting and useful.  If you do, please spread the word to your colleaguess and friends.  After all, the more the merrier!

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Many filing errors (e.g., the failure to file all of a document, the failure to pay a fee, or the unintended filing of an unrelated document) are correctable without penalty by a corrective electronic submission, if it is filed the very same day.  This post discusses a few of the filing errors correctable in this way.

In my last post, I discussed one advantage of electronic filing – the 25% application size discount.  Another advantage of electronic filing is that a registered user of the USPTO’s EFS-Web may view newly-filed applications in Private PAIR almost immediately after submission.  This permits a user to promptly review all of the documents filed in an application to confirm their completeness and accuracy.  This also provides an opportunity to correct many types of filing errors with another electronic filing on the same day.  By the same day, I mean up to 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time in the US (which can be GMT -4:00 or -5:00 depending on the time of year due to daylight savings time).

The following are some examples of filing errors that can be corrected with a same day filing:

1.  Oaths or Declarations – An applicant may later electronically file an executed oath or declaration on the same day of the electronic filing of a new application.  The oath or declaration will not be considered late in this circumstance and, consequently, the surcharge for the late filing of an oath or declaration will be avoided.

2.  Filing Fees – An applicant may later electronically submit fees (e.g., the basic filing fee, search and examination fees, an application size fee, or an excess claims fee) on the same day that a new application is electronically filed.  Here, the fees will not be considered late and thus a surcharge for late payment of the filing fees will not be required.

3.  Incorrect and/or Missing Part of a Specification, Claims and/or Drawings – An applicant may electronically file a correct/missing portion of the written description, any new and/or modified claims, and missing drawings as a preliminary amendment on the filing date of an application.  Such an amendment in a nonprovisional application is considered as part of the original disclosure.  See 37 CFR 1.115(a)(1).  But note that a preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 is not considered part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR §115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT.  See MPEP § 714.01(e).  Also, keep in mind that amendments to the written description may require a substitute specification.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

There are many advantages to filing applications via the USPTO’s electronic filing system (EFS-Web).  One practical advantage is that the USPTO measures the size of an electronically filed application differently than if it were filed by paper.

An application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 (this includes provisional, nonprovisional and design applications, and reissue applications) that exceeds 100 pages in total length is subject to an additional filing fee under 37 CFR 1.16(s) for each additional 50 sheets or fraction thereof.  Thus, an application consisting of 101 pages of specification and drawings incurs an additional fee and an application having 151 pages incurs an even greater additional fee.

The Size of an Application Filed Via EFS-Web is Discounted by 25%

The USPTO applies a 25% discount to the size of an electronically filed application.  So, for example, a 100-page application filed electronically is treated as a 75-page application for application size purposes.  See 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2) and MPEP § 607.  This means that an applicant may file an application up to 133 pages in total length and avoid the size fee, so long as the application is filed electronically.

A Few Caveats

1.  The application size discount of 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2) for EFS-Web filings does NOT apply to national stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. § 371.  See MPEP § 1893.01(c).

2.  Sequence listings and any computer program listing submitted electronically are excluded when determining the application size fees under 37 CFR 1.16(s), so long as the listing is submitted in ASCII text as part of an associated file of the application.  See 37 CFR 1.52(f)(2).  Conversely, sequence listings or computer program listings submitted as PDF files are NOT excluded and are counted along with the specification and drawings.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

The USPTO has announced a new plan to increase the availability of its patent electronic filing system, EFS-Web, by providing a new contingency option when the primary portal to EFS-Web experiences an unscheduled outage. Previously, the entire EFS-Web system was unavailable to the users during such an outage. The new EFS-Web contingency option will permit users to sign-on as unregistered users to file new applications, national stage submissions under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage, requests for reexamination, and certain petitions, during unscheduled outages.

This new EFS-Web contingency option will only permit users to electronically file the following items as unregistered EFS-Web users:

1. Provisional patent applications;

2. Nonprovisional utility and design patent applications (including reissue utility and design patent applications);

3. International applications under PCT Article 11 for filing in the United States Receiving Office;

4. National stage submissions under 35 U.S.C. 371 submitted with the basic national fee necessary to enter the national stage;

5. Requests for ex parte and inter parties reexaminations for utility and design patents;

6. Petitions to make special based on age using the EFS-Web SB130 form;

7. Petitions to accept an unintentionally delayed payment of maintenance fee using the EFS-Web SB66 form; and

8. Petitions to make special under the accelerated examination program.

The Federal Register Notice is available here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Have you ever had a question about an application in prosecution but have been unable to find the correct person to assist you?  Have you ever been unsuccessful in obtaining assistance from an examiner or Supervisory Patent Examiner?  If so, you will want to take note of the USPTO’s new Ombudsman Pilot Program.

The Ombudsman Pilot Program is designed to assist in getting the process back on track when there is a breakdown in the normal prosecution process.  This program is not intended to circumvent normal communication between applicants and/or their representatives and examiners or SPEs, however.  Rather, it is intended to serve as an additional resource to practitioners and applicants.

The Ombudsman Pilot Program began yesterday and will continue for at least 12 months.

>> Click here to visit the homepage for the Ombudsman Pilot Program Ombudsman, which includes an electronic contact form.

>> Click here to view some FAQs on the Ombudsman Pilot Program.

>> Click here to download the Federal Register notice for the Ombudsman Pilot Program.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Introduction

“S-signatures” have been accepted by the USPTO for several years now. An S-signature is an electronic signature betwen forward slashes and includes any signature made by non-handwritten means (i.e. electronic or mechanical).  See MPEP 502.02 and 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2). This type of signature was part of the changes made in the USPTO to support the implementation of its 21st Century Strategic Plan and makes using the USPTO’s EFS-Web far more efficient and secure.

There is no one acceptable form of an S-signature.  Rather, so long as the requirements for S-signatures are satisfied, almost any S-signature will be accepted by the USPTO.

The Rules

37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) sets forth the following four requirements for a valid S-signature:

1. It must consist of only letters and/or Arabic numbers, along with appropriate spaces, commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation;
2. It must be placed between forward slashes;
3. The person signing must insert his or her own signature; and
4. The name of the person signing must be printed or typed immediately adjacent to the S-signature, and be reasonably specific, so the identity of the signer can be readily recognized. In addition, the S-signature of a registered patent practitioner must be accompanied by a registration number.

This Rule places restrictions on the form of the S-signature.  It does not restrict content, however. Consequently, a wide variety of s-signature formats are acceptable. In fact, the USPTO instructs employees who review S-signatures not to reject or refuse correspondence based on the content of the S-signature so long as it complies with the broad criteria set forth above.

Examples

Example 1 – An S-signature for a pro se applicant

Respectfully submitted,

/John Smith/
John Smith

Example 2 – An S-signature for registered practitioner

Respectfully submitted,

By: /John Smith/
John Smith
Reg. No. 01234

Example 3 – An S-signature for registered practitioner

Respectfully submitted,

By: /John Smith, #01234/
John Smith

Other examples of acceptable (and unacceptable) S-signatures can be found here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

On January 29, 2010, the USPTO began participating in a new Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program with the European and Japanese Patent Offices, in their capacities as PCT International Searching and/or Preliminary Examining Authorities.  Under this new PCT-PPH program, certain PCT work product from either of these patent authorities acting in its PCT capacity may serve as the basis for a petition to make special in the USPTO.

The fundamental requirements to qualify are that:

(1) there must have been an indication in the corresponding PCT application that at least one claim has novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.  This indication must have come in the form of:

(i) a written opinion from the ISA;

(ii) a written opinion from the IPEA; and/or

(iii) an IPER from the IPEA; and

(2) the corresponding U.S. application must contain (or be amended to contain) claim(s) that sufficiently correspond to the claim(s) that were indicated as having novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability.

Accordingly, effective immediately, Applicants may request participation in the PCT-PPH pilot program by filing the appropriate form (Form PTO/ SB/20PCT-EP or Form PTO/SB/20PCT-JP) via EFS-Web. The USPTO instructs Applicants to index the form as “Petition to make special under PCT-Patent Pros Hwy”.

Information about all of the current PPH programs (with forms) can be found on the USPTO’s website here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

It is almost always in an Applicant’s best interest to maintain the best working relationship possible with an Examiner. After all, a happy Examiner is more likely to be a helpful Examiner. Also, despite the high turnover at the USPTO, you may very well be working with an Examiner again. So, staying on an Examiner’s “good side” is often good business.

There are many ways to get on the bad side of an Examiner. Some ways are obvious, while others may not be. An exhaustive list is impossible because just like every application, every Examiner is different. Nonetheless, from my many discussions with Examiners over the years, here are five sure-fire ways to get on your Examiner’s bad side.

The List

#5 – File multiple after final papers.

Remember – Examiners don’t get production credit for issuing Advisory Actions.

#4 – Present only a general argument with only generic citations to several pieces of art, without an explanation as to how the art supports the argument

Comment – It appears to me that leaving the grunt work to an Examiner is both unfair and a recipe for a poor Office action in response. Besides, specific citations of evidence tend to make an argument more persuasive. Also, keep in mind the requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b):

In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.

Moreover, general arguments do not help a pre-appeal request for review because an Applicant cannot direct the panel back to the record when that record lacks specificity.

#3 – Submit a needlessly lengthy response inflated with numerous boilerplate paragraphs

Comment – No examiner needs a legal primer on the law of anticipation. Responses with paragraph after paragraph of boilerplate explanations of §§ 102 and/or 103 tend to lack clarity and can pose a challenge to even the most interested reader. Examiners are human and their natural inclination is to skip such paragraphs. This means that they may miss relevant, persuasive arguments, if they are embedded in or near these paragraphs. This also means that an Applicant is wasting resources writing paragraphs that will not be read by the Examiner.

Here, I would suggest taking a look at my earlier blog post on this subject.

#2 – Use uncommon terminology when there

are perfectly good and commonly acceptable terms of art

Comment – Under MPEP § 2111.01(IV) an applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer. But, when an applicant chooses not to characterize an invention in terms that are consistent with commonly used and familiar terminology, he or she potentially impedes the examination of the application. For example, uncommon terminology makes an Examiner’s searching more difficult (i.e., time consuming). With limited time to examine an application, why force an Examiner to spend more time on the art search to the potential detriment of the Office action?

#1 – Attempting to bully an Examiner at an interview

With good fortune, you will be working in the patent profession for many years to come. With some misfortune, you will be back before that Examiner you just tried to bully. Enough said.

Honorable Mentions

1. Asserting that a rejection is somehow incorrect/deficient because claim features you just amended or added were not addressed in the rejections and/or are not found in the art. It seems both illogical and insulting to assert error based on claim features that were not present when the rejection was made. Instead, consider the following approach:

Without conceding the propriety of the Office’s characterization of the Smith widget, Applicant respectfully submits that Smith cannot teach the widget of claim 1, as presently amended.

2. Responding to a rejection by adding more claims with different combinations of previously presented limitations just to see if the new claims might be patentable, especially when (1) the original claims are left unchanged and/or (2) the applicant has argued that a rejection is traversed because the previously presented claims define over the cited art.

3. Reaching an agreement during an interview and then doing something completely different in the next response, without any explanation at all.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Earlier this month, the USPTO announced a new version (2.1.17) of its EFS-Web fillable e-IDS form (Form PTO/SB/08A). This new version permits up to 300 combined citations of U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications in a single IDS form. The USPTO has requested that practitioners begin using this form starting January 31, 2010. Submission of an older version of the EFS-Web fillable e-IDS form (version 2.1.16 or earlier) after this date will result in a validation error message. The version number of your form can be found at its bottom left corner.

The new version of the e-IDS form can be obtained here. Follow this link to the advisory.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2010, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Introduction

Most actions during prosecution of a patent application in the USPTO are eventually subject to quasi-judicial review by an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The classic example of an action that is subject to this type of review is an art (§102 and/or §103) rejection of a claim.

Other actions, however, are not subject to review by an appeal. Rather, the only relief available is administrative review. An example of this type of action is a review of a restriction requirement. This administrative review is conducted, in part, through petition practice.

Still other actions, such as the revival of an abandoned application, may only be requested by petition.

The Starting Points for Any Petition

The Director of the USPTO has delegated to various USPTO officials the authority to decide certain petitions.  The various delegations are set forth in Chapter 1000 of the MPEP.

The specific form and content of many common petitions are set forth in the Rules and the MPEP. For example, the requirements of a petition to revive an abandoned application are set forth in 37 CFR 1.137 and MPEP 711.03(c).

37 CFR 1.181(b) sets forth the general requirements for the content of a petition. This Rule, along with section 1000 and any other relevant section(s) of the MPEP, should be primary resources for anyone drafting a petition.

The Requirements

Every petition in the USPTO must satisfy the following 5 requirements:

1. The petition must be in writing (see 37 CFR 1.2).

Business with the USPTO should almost always be transacted in writing. Enough said.

2. The petition must: contain a statement of relevant facts; identify the issue(s) or error(s) presented for review; and state the action or relief sought by the petition. (see 37 CFR 1.181(b)).

Every petition should be as complete as possible and provide all of the evidence necessary for the rendering of a decision.

3. The petition must be accompanied by any required fee (see 37 CFR 1.181(d)).

The Office may properly dismiss any petition for lack of or insufficient fee. Be sure to consult the USPTO’s current fee schedule here.

4. The petition must be timely filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.181(f), or as required in a specific statute or regulation.

As a general rule, a petition must be filed within 2 months from the date the action complained of occurred or it may properly be dismissed as untimely.

5. The petition must comply with any specific requirements as provided by statute, regulation or USPTO policy.

Review any applicable statute, regulation or USPTO policy relating to the issue being petitioned to determine if there are other requirements specific to that petition.

Final Points

1. Petitions do not stay periods for reply – The mere filing of a petition will not stay the period for replying to an examiner’s action that may be running against an application or act as a stay of other proceedings. (37 CFR 1.181(f)).

2. Be sure to separate each distinct subject, inquiry or request into a separate petition – different branches or sections of the USPTO may consider/decide different matters. Filing separate papers will help to avoid confusion and delay in answering papers dealing with different subjects (see 37 CFR 1.4(c)).

3. Send the petition to the correct decision maker – a petition should be directed to the USPTO official delegated the authority to decide that petition. (see MPEP Chapter 1000).

4. The two-month period to file a petition is not extendable. (37 CFR 1.181(f)).

5. The USPTO provides several fillable pdf petition forms on its website here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

This post discusses a less common but nonetheless important point that my earlier post on this subject did not – the mechanics of how to claim priority to a foreign patent document, along with a few examples.

Generally, the approach for claiming the benefit of foreign priority is similar to claiming domestic priority. There are a few more requirements to keep in mind, however.

THE RULE AND REQUIREMENTS

The controlling rule here is 37 CFR § 1.55, entitled Claim for Foreign Priority, which states:

An applicant in a nonprovisional application may claim the benefit of the filing date of one or more prior foreign applications under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, and 365(a) and (b).

Section 1.55(a) goes on to impose a non-extendable time limit to make the claim, stating that:

the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. This time period is not extendable.

Pursuant to § 1.55, the claim for the benefit of foreign priority must satisfy a few more requirements than a claim for domestic priority. In particular, the claim must identify the foreign application for which priority is claimed by specifying:

1. the application number of the priority document;

2.  the country (or intellectual property authority) with which the priority document was filed

3. the day, month, and year the priority document was filed.

Also, of course, the foreign patent authority must have reciprocity with the USPTO, there must be an identity of inventorship, and the U.S. application must almost always have been filed within 12 months from the filing date of the priority document.

A FEW EXAMPLES

This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to German patent application DE 100 21 175.7, filed January 4, 2005, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

This application is based on and claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 5-234567, filed on October 15, 2007, the contents of which are incorporated by reference.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

This post discusses some of the mechanics involved in securing a right of priority to an earlier filed application, provides some examples of acceptable claims of priority, and ways to correct a failure to make the required claim.

BACKGROUND

When certain conditions are satisfied, a patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application. These specific conditions are set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 CFR 1.78(a)(1) – (a)(3) for prior nonprovisional applications and 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) – (a)(6) for provisional applications.

Generally, the Rules require that an Applicant make a “specific” reference to the prior-filed application in either:

1. the specification; or

2. an application data sheet (ADS).

The Rules do not articulate any particular form of the required “specific” reference. They do, however, dictate that the “specific” reference:

1.  identify the prior-filed application by application number; and

2. identify the specific relationship of the applications (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part).

Also, when there is a claim to a chain of applications, the relationship must be stated for each application, to establish the required co-pendency throughout the chain.

EXAMPLES

Example #1 – Benefit Claim to a Nonprovisional Application

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. patent application no. 12/123,456, filed December 12, 2007.

Example #2 – Benefit Claim to Nonprovisional Applications

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 12/123,456, filed 21 March 2007, and is also a continuation-in-part of Application No. 12/234,567, filed 31 March 2007.

Example #3 – Benefit Claim to Chain of Nonprovisional Applications

If the benefit claim involves a chain of nonprovisional applications, then the specific reference must also include the interrelationships of the applications relative to each other, as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part, to establish co-pendency throughout the entire chain.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of Application No. 12/123,456, filed 21 March 2007, which is a divisional of Application No. 11/123,456, filed 21 March 2006, which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 10/123,456, filed 1 January 2006.

Benefit Claims to International (PCT) Applications

When the specific reference is to an international application, an Applicant is required to:

1. Identify the International application by International application number and International filing date (not the § 371(c) compliance date); and

2. provide any specific interrelationship of multiple applications, when present.

Example #4 – Benefit Claim to a National Stage (§ 371) application

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of Application No. 10/123,456, which is the National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2007/000004, filed January 1, 2007.

Example #5 – Benefit Claim to a Bypass Application

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/US2008/00050, filed January 1, 2008.

Note: do not use the §371(c) compliance date for bypass applications.

Example #6 – Benefit Claim to an International Application (Benefiting From an Earlier Nonprovisional)

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/US2008/00050, filed January 1, 2008, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/123,456, filed February 1, 2006.

Example #7 – Benefit Claim to Provisional Applications

Here again, a specific reference to the prior-filed application is required in the first sentence of the specification or an ADS. This specific reference need not state the relationship between the nonprovisional application and the provisional application.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/123,456, filed March 1, 2008.

THE TIME LIMITS AND CORRECTION

The Rules limit the time in which an Applicant may make a benefit claim. 37 CFR. 1.78(a) requires that any claim of priority must be made before the later of four months from the actual filing date or the date on which the national stage commenced, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior-filed application.

The Impact of Failure To Make A Timely Benefit Claim

The failure to timely submit the “specific” reference is considered a waiver of any benefit claim. The failure to make a timely claim is correctable, but this correction can be relatively expensive.

How Do You Know If A Claim Has Been Correctly Acknowledged by the USPTO?

The Office, via the Official Filing Receipt, notifies Applicants that a benefit claim may not have been recognized or was not accurately recognized. For this reason, it is important to review every Official Filing Receipt, which is usually provided shortly after the filing of an application so as to provide sufficient opportunity to make/correct a benefit claim within the specified time.

Timely Correction

During the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(a), an Applicant may correct a benefit claim by:

1. filing a request for corrected filing receipt, and

2. making the required “specific” reference.

Here, the required “specific: reference can be made either:

by filing an amendment to the specification or by filing an ADS; or

by submitting a copy of the amendment or ADS, if the claim was previously submitted.

Note – There is an important departure from standard USPTO practice here. A preliminary amendment to merely add a claim of priority does not require a substitute specification. See MPEP 714.01(e). The Office would prefer that claims are made via an ADS, however.

Untimely Correction

After the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(a), an Applicant may correct a benefit claim by:

1. filing a petition to accept an unintentionally delayed claim under rule 1.78(a) and the surcharge under rule 1.17(t) (presently 1500.00 USD); and

2. making the required specific reference (including the relationship of the non-provisional applications and identification of any intermediate application which directly claims the benefit of the provisional application).

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

In my earlier post in this series, I discussed a few sections of the MPEP that I have found to be useful in some specific circumstances.  This post discusses a few more.

Some Help For When Patentability Arguments Are Ignored

We have all received Office actions in which the Office seems to have ignored patentability arguments.  In these situations, take a look at the following sections of the MPEP:

707.07(f) Answer All Material Traversed
In order to provide a complete application file history and to enhance the clarity of the prosecution history record, an examiner must provide clear explanations of all actions taken by the examiner during prosecution of an application….Where the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if he or she repeats the rejection, take note of the applicant’s argument and answer the substance of it.

706 Rejection of Claims
After the application has been read and the claimed invention understood, a prior art search for the claimed invention is made. With the results of the prior art search, including any references provided by the applicant, the patent application should be reviewed and analyzed in conjunction with the state of the prior art to determine whether the claims define a useful, novel, nonobvious, and enabled invention that has been clearly described in the specification. The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity. The examiner then reviews all the evidence, including arguments and evidence responsive to any rejection, before issuing the next Office action. Where the examiner determines that information reasonably necessary for the examination should be required from the applicant under 37 CFR  1.105, such a requirement should generally be made either prior to or with the first Office action on the merits and should follow the procedures in MPEP §   704.10 et seq.

*****

(emphasis added).

Some Help When There Appears To Be A Policy of Rejecting All Claims

I have been asked on more than one occasion to offer suggestions on how to respond to Examiners who appear to simply refuse to allow claims.  This happens from time to time in various art groups, for a variety of reasons.  While there is no “silver bullet” so to speak, the MPEP does provide some help.

706 Rejection of Claims

*****
Although this part of the Manual explains the procedure in rejecting claims, the examiner should never overlook the importance of his or her role in allowing claims which properly define the invention.

Some Help For When Office Actions Do Not Apply Cited Art

For any number of reasons, some Office actions fail to apply cited art against the claims, except to say that the cited patent teaches or suggests every feature of the claims.  In these situations, take a look at 37 CFR 1.104(c)(2), which is replicated in § 707 of the MPEP:

707 Examiner’s Letter or Action

*****
(2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.

(emphasis added).

Some Help for Pro Se Applications

For all of you inventors out there prosecuting your own cases, keep the following section of the MPEP in mind:

707.07(j)(I) State When Claims Are Allowable

I.    INVENTOR FILED APPLICATIONS
When, during the examination of a pro se application it becomes apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject matter disclosed in the application, the examiner should draft one or more claims for the applicant and indicate in his or her action that such claims would be allowed if incorporated in the application by amendment.

This practice will expedite prosecution and offer a service to individual inventors not represented by a registered patent attorney or agent. Although this practice may be desirable and is permissible in any case deemed appropriate by the examiner, it will be expected to be applied in all cases where it is apparent that the applicant is unfamiliar with the proper preparation and prosecution of patent applications.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

The USPTO has unveiled a series of proposals that would bring significant change to the examiner “count system” – the methodology for determining the time a patent examiner has to complete a patent examination and how much credit is given for each stage of an examination. The proposals were developed by a task force comprised of senior USPTO patent managers and representatives of the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), the union that represents patent examiners.

The proposed changes would be the most significant in more than 30 years. The last revision to the count system was in 1976.

According to the USPTO, the proposals provide the following:

• Improved working conditions: While the proposal increases the time examiners have overall, it provides incentives to encourage examiners to do a high-quality first action, and shifts resources from a focus on examiner recertification to front-end quality improvements. This change in incentives will ultimately encourage examiners to dispose of applications more quickly.
• More time for examiners: The proposed changes will give examiners more time overall, more time for a first action on the merits, and time for examiner-initiated interviews, while decreasing credits on requests for continued examination (RCEs)* and providing consistent credits for transferred or inherited amendments.
• Process changes:  These changes will increase work credit certainty for examiners, increase fairness to applicants, and balance the load on IT systems.

The USPTO’s press release on the proposed changes can be found here.

The USPTO’s full proposal can be found here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Introduction

USPTO rules require that every non-provisional patent application include an Abstract.  This Abstract is a concise summary of the invention disclosed in the application.  This summary enables the Office (and the public) to quickly determine the nature of the disclosed subject matter.

Although only a summary, it is prudent to draft an Abstract with care. The Abstract is a part of a written disclosure of the application and Federal Courts may properly rely on an Abstract to construe claims.  For this reason, it is beneficial to draft an Abstract at least as broadly as the broadest independent claim.

The many requirements for a patent Abstract are set forth in 37 CFR 1.72(b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). These respective sections of the Rules and the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure should be an Applicant’s primary resources.  The USPTO may properly object to any Abstract that does not satisfy all of the requirements and may require correction by the applicant.  The following are the five most common reasons the Office will object to an Abstract:

1.  The Abstract is not on a separate sheet
A proper Abstract commences on a separate sheet that does not include either other parts of the application or any other material.  Preferably, an Abstract is presented after the claims, which preferably follow the Specification.

2.  The Abstract is too long/too short
A proper Abstract is between 50 and 150 words and does not exceed 15 lines of text.

3.  The Abstract includes improper language
A proper Abstract avoids the legal phraseology commonly found in patent claims, such as “means” and “said.”  Instead, the language used should encompass that which is new and be clear and concise.  Thus, a proper Abstract also avoids phrases that can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.

Remember – the content of an Abstract should enable a reader, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patents, to determine quickly whether there is a need to consult the full patent text.

4.  The Abstract is non-narrative/non-descriptive
A proper Abstract neither discusses purported merits or speculative applications of a disclosed invention nor does it compare the invention with prior art. Rather, a proper Abstract efficiently describes the disclosed subject matter and encompasses what is believed to be novel. Accordingly, extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included.

5.  The Abstract is more than one paragraph
A proper Abstract is a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words.

Abstract Drafting Suggestions

1.  An Abstract is part of the written disclosure of an application and can be used to construe (and likely limit) the claims in future litigation.  So, when drafting this portion of an application always keep in mind Miranda – “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

2.  A common drafting strategy is to incorporate the language of the broadest independent claim, without the “patentese” (pure claim terminology).  This strategy tends to produce an Abstract that is both adequately broad and that avoids characterizations of the invention.  Moreover, this strategy is efficient because it leverages the care and effort used to draft the independent claim on which the Abstract is based.

3.  When an invention is of a basic nature, the Abstract may be directed to the entire disclosure.

4.  When an invention is an improvement of an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the Abstract preferably focuses on the improvement.

5.  When an invention is in the nature of compounds and compositions, the abstract preferably sets forth both a process for making and a use of the compound or composition.

6.  Where applicable, an Abstract should include the following:

(1) if the invention is a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if the invention is an article of manufacture, its method of making;
(3) if the invention is a chemical compound, its identity (i.e., the general nature of the compound, e.g., “The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas”) and use;
(4) if the invention is a mixture, its ingredients; and
(5) if the invention is a process, its operations or steps.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

The USPTO has revised its schedule of fees to reflect upward revisions of some PCT fees to foreign patent offices.  The fee increases will go into effect on October 2, 2009.  The revised fee schedule is available here.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Post Bilski, only methods “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” or that “transform a particular article into a different state or thing” remain patent-eligible.  One option to satisfy this “machine-or-transformation test” is to define a method so that it is tied to a device.

An efficient way to accomplish this is to tie a single operation of the claimed method to a device.  And, according to the BPAI, in the case of a computerized method, this may be accomplished merely by reciting the output of a solution from the system.  That’s right.  In Ex Parte Dickerson, a final decision issued by the Board earlier this month, a § 101 rejection of the following claim was reversed:

23. A computerized method for identifying a solution to address exposed performance gaps of a company in a specific industry, comprising:

first identifying a plurality of operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the operational metrics includes a factor used to measure health or viability of a generic company in the specific industry, wherein the specific industry is a grocery store industry, wherein the operational metrics include at least one of a rate of inventory turnover and a number of customers per day;
assembling a set of solutions for application by the specific industry, wherein the set includes one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service;

assessing impacts of application of the set of solutions on the operational metrics for the specific industry, wherein the assessing includes determining which of the set of solutions has a negative impact on an operational metric and determining which of the set of solutions has a positive impact on the operational metric;

after identifying, assembling, and assessing, then comparing a current operational performance of the company to an operational performance of another company within the specific industry to obtain at least one performance gap, wherein the operational performance includes a performance of a company based upon the operational metric for the specific industry;

identifying a solution based upon the impacts to address the exposed performance gaps, wherein the solution is at least one of a decision, an action, a product, and a service that impacts a problem in a positive manner; and

outputting the solution from the computer system.

The Board’s rationale:

“We find that claims 23, 29 and 30 a computerized method which includes a step of outputting information from a computer (FF 7 and 9-10) and therefore, are tied to a particular machine or apparatus.”

My question to you, the readers of this blog, is could satisfying § 101 be this simple?  And, if not, what other strategies have you found effective?  Please leave a comment if you have a successful strategy to share in a follow up post.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com

Based on the number of requests I have received since my first post on enablement, I know that many of you have been waiting for this follow up.  The following are a few examples employing the principles I discussed in my earlier post.  A word of caution, as is the case with most technical (non-art) rejections, enablement rejections are usually highly fact specific.  Consequently, there are almost an infinite number of ways to respond to any single enablement rejection.  The following are examples of two basic responses.

Examples Of Responses To Enablement Rejections

Example 1 – Failure to Make Out A Prima Facie Case – No Analysis of Wands Factors.

The Office Action rejected claim 2 for allegedly failing to satisfy the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.  This rejection is respectfully traversed.

Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has, by only providing a mere conclusion of nonenablement, failed to satisfy its burden to articulate a prima facie case.  And, without adequate notice of the basis of this rejection, the burden to rebut with evidence and/or argument has not yet shifted to Applicant.

The MPEP repeatedly warns that the Office bears always an initial burden of establishing a prima facie case when making an enablement rejection. (See, e.g., MPEP §§ 706.03, 2164.04).  A prima facie case of nonenablement is only satisfied when the Office establishes a reasonable basis as to why the scope of protection provided by a claim is not adequately enabled by the disclosure. (MPEP § 2164.04)(emphasis added).  This requires that the Office make specific findings of fact, supported by evidence, and then draw conclusions based on those findings of fact.  (MPEP § 2164.04).  This requires, at a minimum, discussion of those Wands factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the Examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or that the scope of any enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.  (Id.).  Simply put, mere conclusory statements are insufficient to support an enablement rejection and must be based on evidence, not mere opinion.  (MPEP § 2164.05).

It is also well settled that the burden to respond only shifts to an Applicant after the Office has established a prima face case, which requires that the Office: (1) weigh all the evidence; and (2) establish a reasonable basis to question the enablement provided for the claimed invention.   (MPEP § 2164.05).

A review of the Office Action reveals only the mere conclusion that “there is no enabling disclosure of an incipient component”.  (Office Action, page 3).  Missing, for example, is any discussion of even a single Wands factor or any indication that any evidence has been weighed, as the MPEP expressly requires.  (MPEP § 2164.01(a)).  Indeed, the rejection is devoid of any evidence or technical reasons as to why the disclosure fails to enable the claimed invention.   Rather, the provided “reason” is a mere conclusion, which the MPEP expressly warns is insufficient to support this rejection. (MPEP §§ 706.03, 2164.05).

The Office’s failure to meet its burden to articulate a “reasonable basis” challenging the enablement of claim 2 alone is fatal to this rejection since Applicant is under no burden to rebut it. (MPEP §§ 706.03, 2164.05). For this reason, this rejection is traversed.

Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claim 2 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

In the event that the Office maintains this rejection, Applicant respectfully requests, in accordance with the principles of compact prosecution, that the Office fully develop the reasons for this rejection by articulating, on the record, those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead it to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or that the scope of any enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims.  (See MPEP § 2164.04)(emphasis in original).

Example 2 – A Substantive Response

Claim 1 stands rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as allegedly not being enabled.  Specifically, the Office Action rejected this claim because of the recitation of an outer terminal that restricts an upper movement of a movable portion of a support structure.  (Office Action, page 2).  This contention is respectfully traversed for at least the following reasons.

The enablement requirement of § 112 is satisfied when an application describes a claimed invention in a manner that permits one of ordinary skill to practice it, without undue experimentation. (MPEP § 2164.01).   Thus, the mere fact that experimentation might be required is insufficient to support an enablement rejection.  Further, even complex experimentation is not necessarily undue.  (MPEP § 2164.01).

Applicant respectfully submits that no experimentation is required to make and use the invention of claim 1.  Nonetheless, even if experimentation might be required, it would not be undue.  In this regard, it is important to be mindful that the question of enablement is one of predictability in view of what is known in the art.  Consequently, the amount of guidance or direction needed to satisfy the enablement requirement is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art.  (MPEP § 2164.03).

The specific question of whether experimentation is “undue” is determined based on the following eight Wands factors:

1. Breadth of the claims;
2. Nature of the invention;
3. State of the prior art;
4. Level of ordinary skill in the art;
5. Predictability of the art;
6. Amount of direction provided in the specification;
7. Any working examples; and
8. Quantity of experimentation needed relative to the disclosure.

(MPEP § 2164.01(a), citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).  Further, a proper analysis of whether any experimentation is undue requires an analysis of all of the pertinent Wands factors.  (MPEP § 2164.01(a))(emphasis added).  It is improper to conclude that a disclosure is not enabling based on an analysis of only one of the above factors while ignoring one or more of the others.  (Id.).

Claim 1 is directed to a novel semiconductor substrate.  It is submitted that the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art, the scope of which is not addressed in the Office Action, is relatively high.  In addition, Applicant’s FIGS. 1-3 illustrate an example of the invention of claim 1.  Further, Applicant describes a method of manufacturing the substrate of claim 1, a fact evidenced by the Restriction Requirement imposed by the Office Action mailed on 02/15/2008.  As a result, at least the following Wands factors weigh in favor of enablement:

• the state of the prior art;
• the level of ordinary skill in the art; and
• the presence of working examples.

These are not the only Wands factors weighing in favor of enablement, however.

Attention is respectfully directed to page 12, lines 13-24 of the present application, which in conjunction with FIG. 1(B), explains:

When it is not necessary to seal the movable structure 15 in a closed space, the first sealing portion 20 may be formed of a plurality of first sealing portions 20a arranged in a comb shape with gaps as shown in FIG. 2(B). In this case, each of the first sealing portions 20a has a mountain shape having slopes. Each of the first sealing portions 20a individually seals a set of the outer terminal 17, the wiring portion 17a connected to the outer terminal 17, and the electrode pad 18 connected to the wiring portion 17a. As shown in FIG. 1(B), the outer terminal 17 has a height E such that the movable structure 15 is adjustable in the arrow direction A to measure specific acceleration upon mounting.

(Emphasis added).  Thus, Applicant explains that the height of the outer terminal permits vertical adjustment of the movable structure (the A direction in FIG. 1(B)).  This at least implies restricting movement.  Consequently, the following Wands factors also favor enablement:

• such as quantity of experimentation needed relative to the disclosure; and
• the amount of direction provided in the specification also favor enablement.

In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that ordinarily skilled artisans would be able to make and use the claimed invention, despite any experimentation that might be required.  Applicant further submits that this conclusion is buttressed by the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability of the art, as well as the majority of Wands factors that weigh in favor of enablement.  Therefore, the present application adequately enables the claimed invention.

Applicant thus respectfully requests favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

If you like this post, why not grab the RSS feed or subscribe by email and get the latest updates delivered straight to your news reader or inbox?

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
DC Patent Attorney
www.mekiplaw.com