Patentably Defined

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

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.

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

Add this blog to your Technorati favorites

Share This

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

As several patent blogs have recently discussed, the backlog at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has topped 20 months and shows few signs of decreasing any time soon.  New appeals are being filed at a rate of about 2.5 times the disposal rate.  Also, new rules limiting continuing practice may still be put into effect, which would certainly increase the rate of future appeals.

One way to avoid further extending the time to have an appeal heard is to avoid having to submit an amended appeal brief because the original was deemed non-compliant.  Knowing the requirements set forth in the Rules and the MPEP may not be enough, however.  This is because an appeal brief may fully satisfy each and every requirement set forth in the Rules and the MPEP and still be returned as non-complaint.

Sections 1205 - 1205.03 of the MPEP address appeal briefs.  In those sections, one will find:

    1205 - the Rule governing appeal briefs, 37 CFR 41.37;

    1205.01 - the timing for filing the appeal brief;

    1205.02 - the required content for an appeal brief; and

    1205.03 -  how the Office deals with non-compliant appeal briefs.

Obviously, MPEP § 1205.02 is a good place to start when preparing an appeal brief.   Relying solely on the MPEP and Rule 37 CFR 41.37 may not be advisable, however.

Not widely known is that the USPTO Appeal Center uses an internal checklist to judge whether an appeal brief is compliant (and accepted) or is non-compliant (and returned to the appellant for resubmission).  Following this link to download the Checklist.

A review of the Checklist is illuminating.  For example, it instructs Appeal Center reviewers that an appeal brief should not be held non-complaint merely because:

     1.  the required sections are “not in the order indicated”;

     2.  there is no statement of the real party in interest (because the Office will assume the named inventors are the real part in interest;

     3.  there is no statement of related cases (because the Office will assume that there are no related cases; and

     4.  there is no evidence section (because the Office will assume that that there is no evidence.

The Checklist, however, does much more than just identify various minor deficiencies that do not alone rise to non-compliance.  In fact, a review of the checklist reveals possible additional requirements that are not found in 37 CFR 41.37 or in the MPEP.  The following are a few examples.

Status Identifiers in the Claim Appendix
Item 9 of the Checklist inquires about whether the claims listed in the Claims Appendix are accompanied by status identifiers. MPEP § 1205 and 37 CFR 41.37 only require a claim appendix that includes a clean, accurate version of all pending claims in numerical order, however.   Specifically, 37 CFR 41.37, subsection (c)(1)(iii)(“Status of claims”) only requires:

A statement of the status of all the claims in the proceeding (e.g., rejected, allowed or confirmed, withdrawn, objected to, canceled) and an identification of those claims that are being appealed.

Nonetheless, the Checklist instructs a reviewer to return to the appellant as non-compliant any appeal brief that lacks status identifiers in the Claims Appendix.

Table of Contents
Item 3 of the Checklist inquires about the presence of a table of contents and instructs the Appeal Center reviewer to hold an appeal brief non-compliant if a table or its heading is omitted.  But, neither Rule 41.37 nor the MPEP requires a table.  In fact, MPEP § 1205.02 actually characterizes tables of contents or authority as merely desirable and instructs that an appeal brief may comply with 37 CFR 41.37 even when those tables are absent.

Page Numbering
Item 13 of the Checklist inquires about the page numbering, which is a requirement not found in either the MPEP or Rule 41.37.  Nonetheless, according to the Checklist:

The pages of the appeal brief, including all sections of the appendix, shall be numbered consecutively … beginning  with the first page of the appeal brief, which shall be numbered page 1.

While admittedly imprudent to submit an Appeal Brief without consecutive page numbers, this is not the only formatting requirement that is found in the Checklist but not in the MPEP.

Conclusion
The bottom line, whether supported or unsupported, every appellant needs to be aware of the Checklist and the additional requirements that it appears to impose on appeal briefs.  Ignoring these additional requirements increases the chances that an appeal brief will be returned as non-compliant, which would extend the already lengthy wait for a BPAI decision.

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

Add this blog to your Technorati favorites

Share This

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

As regular readers of this blog know, I advocate using the USPTO’s Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) as primary authority during prosecution.  I discussed my reasons for doing so in this earlier post.  Basically, it is the USPTO’s official manual, so its instructions to Examiners are beyond dispute.

From time to time, when responding to an Office action or preparing a post for this blog, I come across interesting, useful MPEP sections that I think that other practitioners may not know about.   Admittedly, these sections are not useful in everyday prosecution.  Nonetheless, in certain, specific circumstances, these sections of the MPEP may be helpful.

Some help for older applications
Often, the prosecution of an application extends into third Office actions.  In these cases, as well as “mature” cases, take note of §707.02 of the MPEP.

707.02 Applications Up for Third Action and 5-Year Applications
The supervisory patent examiners should impress their assistants with the fact that the shortest path to the final disposition of an application is by finding the best references on the first search and carefully applying them.

The supervisory patent examiners are expected to personally check on the pendency of every application which is up for the third or subsequent Office action with a view to finally concluding its prosecution.

Any application that has been pending five years should be carefully studied by the supervisory patent examiner and every effort should be made to terminate its prosecution. In order to accomplish this result, the application is to be considered “special” by the examiner.

Some help for a generic rejection of a group of claims
We have all seen rejections in which an Examiner has erroneously characterized several independent claims, grouped them together, and generically rejected the group.  In situations like this in which an Examiner has grouped claims together to make a generic, omnibus rejection, §707.07(d) of the MPEP may be of interest.  That section warns:

707.07(d) Language to be Used in Rejecting Claims

*****

A plurality of claims should never be grouped together in a common rejection, unless that rejection is equally applicable to all claims in the group.

Some help for inventor filed (pro se) applications
The MPEP expressly instructs Examiners to offer specific help to pro se applicants by writing proposed claims.  If you are a pro se applicant, keep §707.07(j) in mind.

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

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.

Coming Next - More Help from the MPEP

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

Add this blog to your Technorati favorites

Share This

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

An application data sheet (ADS) is a document that provides the bibliographic data for an application to the USPTO.  The USPTO prefers, but does not require, the use of an ADS.  An ADS can be advantageous, however, because it tends to reduce errors in the conversion/recordation of application data into the  USPTO’s official electronic  data record.  While electronic filing via the USPTO’s EFS-Web has certainly reduced some errors, the USPTO relies on the uploaded documents (e.g., declaration, specification), rather than a user’s input, to create its official electronic record.  For example, in a national stage application filed under 35 USC § 371, the USPTO might look to the publication of the international application for the title and to other documents for the listing of inventors and the correspondence address.   The use of an ADS, because it provides this information in a single document and in a specified format, improves the accuracy of this conversion and the resulting electronic record.

Examples of What Can Happen Without an ADS
The USPTO’s procedures for converting the application data of paper applications and for recording electronic data into its official data record are surprisingly accurate, in view of the number of application data records it must create.  Nonetheless, as with any system, errors do occur.  And, even when they are remedied early in the prosecution process, they still take time and can cause processing delays.  Worse yet, sometimes errors in the USPTO data records are not corrected.  Consider the following U.S. patents, which could have benefited from an ADS:

1. U.S. Patent Nos. 6,112,451, 6,631,400, and 6,637,044, each for a “Statement Regarding Federally Sponsored Research or Development”;
2. U.S. Patent No. 7,263,562 for a “Method and System for Describing Uploaded Files Statement Regarding Federally Sponsored Research or Development”; and
3. U.S. Patent No. 6,389,215 for “Low Birefringent Polyimides for Optical Waveguides Statement Regarding Federally Sponsored Research or Development”.

And then there are:

1. U.S. Patent No. 6,930,045 for “Cross Reference to Related Application”;
2. U.S. Patent No. 6,829,526 for a “Train Detection System and a Train Detection Method Cross Reference to Related Application”; and
3. U.S. Patent No.  6,786,734 for an “Electrical Adapter With a Foldable Housing Cross-Reference to Related Application”.

Clearly, there are instances when an ADS would have helped the USPTO more accurately convert bibliographic information into an official data record.

The Requirements for an ADS
37 CFR § 1.76 governs application data sheets and sets forth specific requirements for each ADS.  The following are some of the more noteworthy.

1.  An ADS may be used in provisional and nonprovisional applications.  37 CFR § 1.37(a).

2.  The USPTO offers a fillable pdf form (Form PTO/SB/14) on its website here.  CAUTION - The USPTO ADS fillable form must be submitted as a text-based PDF file. A scanned version of the ADS fillable form will be rejected via EFS-Web because EFS-Web will not be able to auto-load scanned in data into backend systems.   (Answer to USPTO.GOV EFS-Web Help FAQ # 252).

3.  An ADS must be in a specific format.  An ADS must be titled “Application Data Sheet” and must contain all of the following section headings, with any appropriate data for each section heading:

1. Applicant information (i.e., the name, residence, mailing address, and citizenship of each applicant);
2. Correspondence information (i.e., the correspondence address, which may be indicated by reference to a customer number);
3. Application information (i.e., the title of the invention, a suggested classification, by class and subclass, the Technology Center to which the subject matter of the invention is assigned, the total number of drawing sheets, any docket number assigned to the application, the type of application);
4. Representative information (i.e., the registration number of each practitioner having a power of attorney in the application);
5. Domestic priority information (i.e., the application number, the filing date, the status, and relationship of each application for which a benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, or 365(c));
6. Foreign priority information (i.e., the application number, country, and filing date of each foreign application for which priority is claimed) (NOTE - providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and § 1.55(a); and
7. Assignee information.

37 CFR §§ 1.76 (a) and (b).

4.  Providing domestic priority information in an ADS constitutes the specific reference required by 35 USC § 119(e) or 120, and 37 CFR §§ 1.78(a)(2) or 1.78(a)(5), such that this information need not otherwise be made part of the specification.  37 CFR 1.76 (b)(5).

5.  The USPTO will interpret any blank section in an ADS to mean that there is no corresponding data for that label anywhere in the application.  37 CFR § 1.76(a).

6.  In the event of an inconsistency between the ADS and other submitted documents, the timing of the submission of the conflicting information controls.

• When the conflicting information is submitted at different times - the latest submitted information governs regardless of how it is supplied, except that an oath or declaration governs inconsistencies in the naming of inventors or their citizenship.
•  When the conflicting information is submitted at the same time - the ADS will govern when the inconsistent information is supplied at the same time, except that an oath or declaration governs inconsistencies in the naming of inventors or their citizenship.

37 CFR 1.76 (d)

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

Add this blog to your Technorati favorites

Read the rest of this entry »

Share This

© 2009, Michael E. Kondoudis

This post discusses requests to withdraw finality.  Under the USPTO’s policy of compact prosecution discussed here, a second office action may properly be made final under most circumstances.  The circumstances are set forth in §706.07(a) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), entitled Final Rejection, When Proper on Second Action, which states:

Under present practice, second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).

The MPEP, in §706.07(d), also provides a remedy when a final Office Action is issued and the conditions of §706.07(a) have not been satisfied.  That section, entitled Final Rejection, Withdrawal of, Premature, provides:

If, on request by applicant for reconsideration, the primary examiner finds the final rejection to have been premature, he or she should withdraw the finality of the rejection. The finality of the Office action must be withdrawn while the application is still pending. The examiner cannot withdraw the final rejection once the application is abandoned.

The following are a few examples of successful Requests to Withdraw Finality.

—- EXAMPLES —-

This first example was submitted in response to a final Office action that mischaracterized a claim.

REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FINALITY

Applicants are in receipt of a final Office Action mailed March 13, 2007, in this application. Applicants respectfully request that the finality of the subject Office Action should be withdrawn because the Office has expressly and erroneously misinterpreted claims and, as a result, has failed to consider the patentability arguments presented in the most recently filed Amendment. Further, the Office’s express, incorrect claim characterization precludes the Office Action from addressing the merits of the argument presented concerning one of the presented independent claims.

In support of this request, Applicants state the following:

1. On December 20, 2006, Applicants filed an Amendment that presented independent claim 15 with the following claim recitation:

a disk protector disposed at an outer edge of the disk damper….

2. In response to the Amendment filed December 20, 2006, the Office mailed a final Office Action on March 13, 2007, which explained that all rejections were maintained because:

Applicant argues the limitations which are not in the claim language” because Applicants only claim “…arranged/disposed along an outer edge of the disk damper…Applicant does not claim “…at an outer edge of the disk damper.”

(Office Action, page 3).

3. The aforementioned statement of paragraph 2 is manifestly incorrect and without basis in fact. Indeed, Applicants’ independent claim 15 expressly recites “at.”

4. Section 707.07(f) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) instructs that:

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.

5. The Office repeated the rejections of all of the claims. The Office, however, neither “took note” of Applicants’ argument nor “answered the substance” of Applicants’ argument. Thus, the final Office Action is deficient because the Office failed to satisfy the requirements of MPEP § 707.07(f).

6. Also, it is submitted that the outstanding Office Action has taken an improper and unreasonable interpretation of claim terms. And, for this additional reason, Applicants respectfully submit that the outstanding Office Action is improper.

In view of the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the finality of the outstanding Office Action and further request a new non-final Office Action that addresses the merits of claim 15.

This second example was submitted in response to a final Office action that first rejected features that were previously presented for examination.

REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FINALITY

Applicant is in receipt of a final Office Action mailed December 25, 2007, in this application.  Applicant respectfully submits that the finality of the subject Office Action is premature and therefore requests withdrawal of that finality, pursuant to Section 706.07(d) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).

Grounds
As grounds for this Request, Applicant states as follows:

1.  The final Office Action rejects independent claim 1 on new grounds.  As the Office itself states, “Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.”  (Final Office Action, page 6).

2.  The sole amendment to independent claim 1 was made in an Amendment filed October 25, 2008.  In that Amendment, Applicant cancelled original claim 2 and amended independent claim 1 to recite the features of cancelled claim 2.

3.  The features of claim 2 that were added to independent claim 1 were previously presented for examination.  Thus, the added features could have been rejected in an earlier Office action but were not.

4.  Section 706.07(a) of the MPEP specifies the conditions under which the finality of a second or subsequent Office action is proper, providing that:
Under present practice, second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement….

5.  Applicant submits that because the features added to independent claim 1 were presented for examination in the preceding Office Action, the new ground of rejection of claim 1 made in the final Office Action cannot reasonably be said to be either necessitated by a claim amendment or an Information Disclosure Statement.

Conclusion
The conditions set forth in § 706.07(a) of the MPEP have not been satisfied.  Accordingly, for that reason alone, as well as the interests of fairness, the finality of the final Office Action should be withdrawn.

This final example was submitted in response to a final Office action that rejected a claim for the first time.

REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FINALITY

Applicant is in receipt of a final Office Action mailed December 25, 2007, in this application.  Applicant respectfully submits that the finality of the subject Office Action is premature and therefore requests withdrawal of that finality, pursuant to Section 706.07(d) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).

Grounds For Request
As grounds for this Request, Applicant states as follows:

1.  The final Office Action rejected independent claim 20.

2.  The non-final Office Action that immediately preceded the final Office Action did not reject independent claim 20.

3.  Section 706.07(a) of the MPEP specifies the conditions under which the finality of a second or subsequent Office action is proper, providing that:

Under present practice, second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement….

4.  Applicant submits that the rejection of independent claim 20 is a new ground of rejection.  Also, because Applicant neither amended claim 20 nor filed an IDS between the subject non-final and final Office actions, the conditions required by MPEP § 706.07(a) cannot yet be satisfied.

Conclusion
The conditions set forth in § 706.07(a) of the MPEP have not been satisfied.  Accordingly, for that reason alone, as well as the Office’s policy of compact prosecution, the finality of the final Office Action should be withdrawn.

Two last comments.  First, I prefer to file these Requests as separate, stand alone documents.  Second, each of the examples in this post is based on successful Request.  They are by no means appropriate for every final Office action.  But, when finality is premature, this type of Request can be an effective remedy.

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

Share This

© 2008, Michael E. Kondoudis

This is the second in a two-part series on Official Notice and strategies for responding to rejections based on Official Notice.  In part one of this series, I discussed basic principles of Official Notice.  What follow are a few examples of responses to rejections based on the principles discussed in my earlier post.

Example 1 - An Improper Taking of Official Notice

Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of independent claim 1 at least because the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.

In rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103, the Office Action contends:

It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to replace the printer of Smith with the plotter of Jones since the Examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalent use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to write information on a plastic card would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.

Applicant respectfully traverses this attempted use of Official Notice as improper.  Consequently, a necessary element of a prima facie case is absent.

Firstly, it is to be appreciated that the Office Action attempts to officially notice legal conclusions, –namely “the equivalent use in the art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to write information on a plastic card would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.”  Official Notice, however, is only proper for facts.  (MPEP § 2144.03).  Indeed, Official Notice is only permissible for those few facts that are of a “notorious character” and that are “capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration”.  (MPEP § 2144.03(A)).  It is improper to use Official Notice for conclusions of law.

Secondly, the Office Action relies on Official Notice as the “principal evidence” upon which the rejection of claim 1 is based.  Official Notice cannot be used in this manner.  As Section 2144.03(A) of the MPEP expressly warns, it is never appropriate to rely solely on Official Notice as the principal evidence upon which a rejection was based.  Instead, Official Notice is only appropriate for facts and that serve to “fill in the gaps” in a rejection.  (MPEP § 2144.03(A)).  This is why official notice is to be judicially applied.  (MPEP §  2144.03).  It is unreasonable to conclude that the Office has used Official Notice to “fill in” a gap in this rejection.

Thirdly, the Office attempts to take Official Notice of matter that is not “capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration”, as expressly required by section 2144.03(A) of the MPEP.  Indeed, even assuming arguendo that the equivalence of the subject printer and plotter is a fact, this fact would be neither of notorious character nor instantly and unquestionably demonstrable.  Moreover, courts have long rejected the notion that official notice can be taken on the state of the art.  (See Memorandum to Patent Examining Corps from the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examining Policy regarding Procedures for Relying on Facts Which are Not of Record as Common Sense or for Taking Official Notice, n.6, citing In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364, 1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973)).   Thus, the Office’s attempt to officially notice the level of ordinary skill in the art is improper as a matter of law.

In sum, the Office’s attempts at Official Notice are improper and traversed.  Consequently, there are evidentiary gaps in the rejection of independent claim 1 that are fatal to a prima facie case of obviousness.

Example 2 - An Ambiguous Taking of Official Notice

Lastly, Applicant notes, at page 4 of the Office Action, an apparent attempt to officially notice a fact.  If the Office has intended to take Official Notice, such an attempt is traversed, at least because it is not in compliance with the Office’s own procedures.

Proper use of Official Notice requires compliance with several obligations expressly set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.   The Office has failed to meet these obligations.  Specifically, the Office has failed to satisfy its obligations under MPEP § 2144.03.  MPEP § 2144.03 (B), for example, expressly requires the Office to provide specific factual findings predicated on sound technical and scientific reasoning to support taking Official Notice. The MPEP goes on to explain that this means that the Office should present an Applicant with the explicit basis on which Official Notice is based so that the Applicant is able to challenge the assertion in the next reply after the Office action. (MPEP §2144.03(B)).  Naked assertions about what is allegedly known in the art, like those made at page 4 of the Office Action, cannot satisfy these requirements.
In the event that the Office is not attempting to take Official Notice, Applicant respectfully requests confirmation of this fact.

Finally, I recommend reviewing the cited Memorandum to Patent Examining Corps from the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examining Policy from the first example.  It is a useful summary of the USPTO’s policies and instructions to its Examiners.

Share This

© 2008, Michael E. Kondoudis

Inherency Defined

Inherency is a doctrine in U.S. patent prosecution by which unstated or unillustrated aspects of cited art are treated as if they are expressly disclosed.  The basis for this doctrine is that some things that will, as a matter of scientific fact, always flow from what is disclosed in art. 

This doctrine permits the USPTO to rely on more than just the mere express disclosures of applied art to reject claims under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103.

The doctrine of inherency is generally appropriate only in limited circumstances.

General Principles

1.    Subject matter is only inherent when extrinsic evidence makes it clear that the subject matter is necessarily present in (i.e., necessarily flows from) the disclosure of cited art, and that ordinarily skilled artisans would recognize it.  (MPEP 2112).

2.    Ordinarily skilled artisans, however, need not recognize this presence at the time of invention.   (MPEP 2112 (II)).

3.    Inherency cannot be established by mere possibilities or even probabilities.  The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or may be present in cited art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.  (MPEP 2112 (IV)), citing In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversing a rejection based on inherency because result due to optimization of conditions was not necessarily present in the prior art).

4.    The Patent Office’s guidelines for using inherency are found in Sections 2112 – 2112.02 of the MPEP.  This should be an Applicant’s primary resource for authority when responding to rejections based on inherency.

The Patent Office Always Bears an Initial Burden to Establish Proper Reliance on Inherency

It is always incumbent on an Examiner to develop reasons supporting a reliance on inherency.   (MPEP 2112 (IV)).

To fully develop reasons, the Office must provide reasonable support for invoking inherency.  This reasonable support requires “a basis in fact” (evidence) and/or reasoning tending to show that an allegedly inherent feature necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied art.  (MPEP 2112 (IV), citing Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original)).  Only after providing this reasonable support does the burden to rebut a claim rejection based on inherency shift to an Applicant.  (MPEP 2112 (V), 2112.01(I))).

The Office enjoys a few logical presumptions to help it provide reasonable support.  For example, reasonable support is presumed to be present when:

1. a claimed structure is substantially identical to that of applied art;
2. a claimed product is produced by a process substantially identical to that of applied art (identical processes produce identical products);
3. a claimed composition is physically identical to that of applied art (identical compositions must have the same properties).

When these circumstances are established, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness is made.  (MPEP 2112.01 (I)).

An Approach for Responding to Rejections Based on Inherency

An Applicant should always first consider whether the Office has met its burden under MPEP 2112 (IV) to provide a reasonable basis justifying a reliance on inherency.  Only after the Office has met this burden is it absolutely necessary to address the ultimate question of whether the evidence or reasoning is correct.  Nonetheless, as a practical matter, it is often advantageous to explain why allegedly inherent subject matter does not necessarily flow from cited art, even when the Office fails to justify its reliance on inherency.

Illustrative Examples

1.  A Failure to Articulate a Prima Facie Case

In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 102, the Office Action concedes that the Smith patent does not expressly or impliedly teach the aforementioned claim feature of a widget.  (Office Action, page 3).  Nonetheless, the Office rejects claim 1, contending that the feature of a widget is inherently taught by Smith.  Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection at least because the Office has not met its burden to fully develop reasons supporting its reliance on the doctrine of inherency.

The Office always bears the initial burden to develop reasons supporting a reliance on inherency.   (MPEP 2112 (IV)).  To satisfy this burden, the Office must identify some basis in fact or articulate some reasoning at least tending to show that allegedly inherent subject matter necessarily (i.e., inevitability) flows from cited art.  Indeed, the MPEP expressly instructs that:

“In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.”  Further, since a basis in fact and technical reasoning is required when inherency is invoked, a failure to provide such evidence or rationale is fatal to the reliance on this doctrine.  This is only logical since evidence “must make clear” that the allegedly inherent subject matter is necessarily present in (i.e., necessarily flows from) the disclosure of cited art.  (MPEP 2112).

A review of page 3 of the Office Action reveals the absence of the required rationale or evidence at least tending to show that the feature of a widget inevitably flows from the disclosures of Smith patent.  Indeed, the Office Action merely asserts that a red widget is inherently present in the Smith patent.  (Office Action, page 3).  This naked assertion, a mere conclusory statement, cannot reasonably be said to be a development of any reason supporting the Office’s reliance on inherency.  Consequently, the Office Action’s reliance on inherency is unsupported and thus improper.

In sum, the Office Action concedes that the Smith patent does not teach the feature of claim 1 of a widget and any reliance on the doctrine of inherency to provide this necessary teaching is improper.

2.  A Substantive Response

In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action concedes that the Smith patent does not expressly or impliedly teach the aforementioned claim feature of a red widget.  (Office Action, page 3).  Nonetheless, the Office rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, contending that a red widget is inherent from the disclosures of the Smith patent.  This contention is respectfully traversed, at least because express teachings of the Smith patent preclude reliance on the doctrine of inherency, as a matter of law.

It is well settled that subject matter is inherent only when extrinsic evidence makes it clear that the subject matter necessarily (i.e., inevitably) flows from a disclosure of cited art.  (MPEP 2112).  This requirement is a prerequisite to invoking the doctrine of inherency and cannot be avoided.  Consequently, inherency may never be established by mere probabilities or even possibilities and the mere fact that a certain thing may be present (or may result) is always insufficient.  (MPEP 2112).

A review of the Smith patent reveals no less than three separate teachings that the Smith widget cannot be red.  Applicant respectfully submits that these express teachings so heavily weigh against the inevitable presence of a red widget that they preclude reliance on the doctrine of inherency as a matter of law.  Stated another way, the presence of these express teachings means that the subject matter alleged by the Office Action to be inherent can never reasonably be said to necessarily flow from the Smith patent.  Thus, the Office’s current reliance on inherency can never satisfy the standard set forth in MPEP § 2112 for proper reliance on inherency.

Share This

© 2008, Michael E. Kondoudis

Listings of claims are required in most, but not all responses to Office actions.  This post discusses when they are required and why it may be prudent to include them even when they are not.

The Rules
The manner of making amendments in a patent application is governed by 37 CFR. 1.121 entitled “Manner of Making Amendments in Applications”.  Sections (C) and (C) (1) of that rule addresses claim listings, and state:

(c) Claims. … Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application.

(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1-5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.

Thus, every filing that includes a change to a claim, a cancellation of an existing claim, or an addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented in that application.

A failure to include a listing of the claims when required renders a filing non-compliant.

What about filings in response to an Office action in which no claim changes are made and a listing of the claims is not required (e.g., a Response to a Restriction Requirement of a Request for Reconsideration)?  I have seen such filings prepared both ways; with and without a listing of the claims and I suppose that a case could be made for either approach.  I suggest, however, that it may be a better practice to include a listing of the claims in every response, regardless of whether or not it is required.  Here are a few reasons why.

1. Including a Listing of Claims Makes Examination Easier. When a response does not include a listing of the claims, anyone reviewing the arguments presented will have to refer to at least one other document (e.g., a previous amendment or the original application) to find a listing of the claims.  In other words, omitting a listing requires the reader to sift through the file wrapper to find a listing of the claims.  At a minimum, this is inefficient and inconvenient.  I prefer not putting an Examiner through this trouble.  The Office’s current production quotas are difficult enough for an Examiner to meet.
The bottom line: making the Examiner’s job easier is in everyone’s best interests and can only help improve the quality of examination.  Besides, every Applicant can benefit from some Examiner goodwill.

2.  The USPTO Encourages Inclusion of a Claim Listing In Every Response.
The following is from a frequently asked questions page on the USPTO Website about current amendment practice:

(A10)Q:   May I submit a complete claim listing in a reply when I am not making any changes to the claims, such as responding to a restriction requirement or merely arguing a rejection?A:  Yes. Although a complete claim listing is only required whenever changes are made to any claims, one may be submitted in a reply to an Office action where no changes are being made. It is beneficial to the examiner (and all viewers of the electronic file) to have the most up-to-date set of claims in the most recent paper submitted by the applicant. Note that the claim listing in this situation would not include any claims with markings or any claims with the status identifiers of (new) or (currently amended).

3.  Including a Listing of Claims Promotes Accuracy.
The inclusion of a listing of the claims in every filing makes identifying the most current version of the claims easier for everyone who may pick up the file.   This, in turn, tends to reduce: errors in drafts prepared by support staff; the time needed to review such drafts; and non-compliant amendments.

4.  Including a Listing of Claims Promotes Faster (and Smoother) Review of Work Product.
Including a listing of the claims in every response makes review easier.  And, an easier review tends to be a shorter review.  Shortening the time required for review lessens the overall expense for preparing a filing, especially when the reviewer has a higher billing rate than the practitioner who prepared the filing. Besides, making review easier on the reviewer seems to make that review go a little smoother for the practitioner.

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

Share This

© 2008, Michael E. Kondoudis

In an earlier post, I discussed the Office’s policy of compact prosecution and how that policy affects patent prosecution in the USPTO. Under that policy, second Office actions are usually made final, except in limited circumstances. Consequently, except for an allowance or an indication of allowable subject matter, a response that triggers a non-final Office action is often the best result an Applicant can expect. After all, forcing the Office to deviate from its policy of compact prosecution is usually evidence of effective patent prosecution, particularly when a non-final Office action is triggered without a claim amendment.

A Problem - Successive Non-Final Office Actions That Do Not Advance Prosecution

In some cases, however, second, third, or fourth non-final Office actions are arguably the result of poor Office action quality rather than the quality of the patentability arguments. These Office actions are problematic because they don’t advance an application or even provide practical measures of potential patentability, yet they require formal responses. Thus, Applicants incur the expenses of responses without the benefit of advancing prosecution.

A common example of this circumstance is a first non-final Office action that applies poor art. Sometimes, after an Applicant traverses the art rejections with patentability arguments and/or claim amendments that amount to no more than a rewrite of an original independent claim to incorporate an original dependent claim, the Applicant receives another non-final Office action (with new art) and the cycle is repeated.

This post addresses this atypical but vexing situation in which an Applicant is required to respond to successive non-final Office actions that aren’t advancing prosecution.  To be clear, this post is NOT intended to address all successive non-final Office Actions. Rather, this post discusses some suggestions for escaping the administrative “purgatory” of successive non-final Office Actions that do not advance prosecution.

By Design or the Result of Ex Parte Prosecution?

Some practitioners, at least anecdotally, seem to be of the opinion that this could be an intentional practice by some art groups in the USPTO, intended to wear down applicants and get them to either: unduly limit their claims rather than seeking protection for the full scope of their inventions; or to abandon their cases. Others are of the opinion that this is the result of the sometimes inefficient process of ex parte prosecution and that Examiners cannot allow claims that they believe to be unpatentable.

Options to Consider

1. Consider An Appeal
One option might be to appeal at least some of the rejections. An applicant whose claim has been twice rejected may appeal, regardless of whether the claim is under a final rejection. See MPEP § 1204.  So, if any claim has faced the same rejection two times, appeal is an option.

2.  Consider an Interview
An Examiner interview is almost always an effective tool to advance prosecution.  Sometimes an Examiner misses novel features of the claims or misunderstands a patentability argument.  An interview is opportunity to meet the Examiner and to refocus prosecution.

3. Remind the Examiner of The Office’s Instructions for Art Searches
The MPEP establishes guidelines for art searches and the goals of these searches. For example, Section 904.02 of the MPEP, entitled General Search Guidelines, advises Examiners that:

The search [for citable art] should cover the claimed subject matter and should also cover the disclosed features which might reasonably be expected to be claimed.

Further, Section 904.03 of the MPEP, entitled Conducting the Search, instructs that:

It is a prerequisite to a speedy and just determination of the issues involved in the examination of an application that a careful and comprehensive search, commensurate with the limitations appearing in the most detailed claims in the case, be made in preparing the first action on the merits so that the second action on the merits can be made final or the application allowed with no further searching other than to update the original search.

This section goes on to warn that:

It is normally not enough that references be selected to meet only the terms of the claims alone, especially if only broad claims are presented; but the search should, insofar as possible, also cover all subject matter which the examiner reasonably anticipates might be incorporated into applicant’s amendment. In doing a complete search, the examiner should find and cite references that, while not needed for treating the claims, would be useful for forestalling the presentation of claims to other subject matter regarded by applicant as his or her invention, by showing that this other subject matter is old or obvious.

(emphasis added).  Finally, Section 904 warns that the examiner should cite only the best discovered art.

If anyone else has other strategies or suggestions to address this circumstance, I invite you to share them with other readers in the comments section.

Share This

© 2008, Michael E. Kondoudis

A common prosecution strategy when an Office action indicates allowed claims or allowable subject matter is to cancel the rejected subject matter and continue prosecuting that canceled subject matter in a continuing application. This strategy, of course, results in the relatively rapid issuance of a patent.

An interesting aspect of this strategy is that some non-final rejections in these continuing applications are appealable. Thus, an Applicant sometimes has the option to pursue an appeal of a non-final claim rejection rather than to make further attempts to traverse it. The remainder of this post discusses when non-final claim rejections are appealable.

The Rule - Twice Rejected Claims are Appealable

Pursuant to Statute and Rule, an Applicant may appeal the rejection of any claim that has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim has been finally rejected. In particular, 35 U.S.C. 134(a) provides that:

An applicant for a patent, any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, having once paid the fee for such appeal.

Also, 37 CFR 41.31(a)(1) provides that:

An applicant for a patent dissatisfied with a primary examiner’s decision in the second rejection of his or her claims may appeal to the Board for review of the examiner’s rejection by filing a notice of appeal and the required fee.

The Twice Rejected Requirement Is Not Limited To A Single Application

Noticeably absent from the Statute and Rule is a requirement that a claim must be “twice rejected” in a particular application. Consequently, an Applicant need not always wait until a claim is twice rejected in a single application to pursue an appeal. Consider the following example.

Example

Claims 1-3 are allowed in a parent application. Claim 4 is rejected.

Applicant cancels claim 4 so that the parent, with claims 1-3, may proceed to issue.

Applicant also files a continuing application to prosecute claim 4 and other claims. Thereafter, the previous rejection of claim 4 is repeated in a first, non-final Office action in the continuing application.

In this scenario, claim 4 has been twice rejected. Thus, the rejection of claim 4 is appealable, despite being non-final.

Four Additional Points About Appeals

1. An Appealed Claim Must Be Under Rejection. An Applicant cannot file an appeal in a continuing application until a claim is rejected, regardless of the number of times that claim may have been rejected in the parent application.
2. There Is No Requirement To Identify In The Notice Of Appeal The Claims To Be Appealed. The rules do not require an Applicant to identify the claims that will be appealed.
3. The USPTO Has A Form Notice Of Appeal Form for EFS-WEB. The USPTO recommends filing a Notice of Appeal as a separate paper and provides form PTO/SB/31 for this purpose. This form can be found at here.

Share This