I recently completed participation in the USPTO’s new pilot continuing legal education system called “Continuing Education for Practitioners” (CEP). As I explained in my earlier post on the CEP system, the USPTO solicited volunteers to try out their new CLE system. I volunteered, was selected, and, as promised, the following is my report on the…
Some Strategies For Responding To Rejections Based On Inherency
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…
Goodbye To Duplicate Paper Copies Of Fee Forms
For those who are still filing by paper, the USPTO announced last week that it will finally be doing away with the requirement for duplicate copies of forms required for processing fees (e.g., an authorization to charge a deposit account). Before Image File Wrappers (IFWs), when paper filing was an Applicant’s only option, duplicate copies…
USPTO Seeks Volunteers To Test Its Online Continuing Education System
The USPTO has developed a system to administer continuing legal education to practitioners. This system, entitled the “Continuing Education for Practitioners” or (“CEP”) system, is intended to “increase efficiency, reduce pendency, and improve quality in the patent process.” The USPTO states that the CEP system is “built on the recognition that a smoothly operating patent…
A Few Reasons To Consider Including A Listing Of Claims In Every Response To An Office Action
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…