Question: How should measurements be given within a patent application? Answer: In order to minimize the necessity in the future for converting dimensions given in the English system of measurements to the metric system of measurements when using printed patents as research and prior art search documents, all patent applicants should use the metric (S.I.) […]

The post MPEP Q & A 290: Use of metric system of measurements in patent applications appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List two situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection? Answer: Where the statutory basis for the rejection remains the same, and the evidence relied upon in support of the rejection remains the same, a change in the discussion of, or rationale in support of, the rejection does not necessarily constitute a new […]

The post MPEP Q & A 289: List two situations that are not considered new grounds of rejection? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: How may an examiner treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action? Answer: An examiner may treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action by: (A) accepting the amendment as an adequate reply to the non-final Office action to avoid abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 133 and 37 CFR1.135; […]

The post MPEP Q & A 288: How may an examiner treat an amendment not fully responsive to a non-final Office action? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When inconsistent information is given for an application data sheet, what submission will govern control according to 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1)? Answer: 37 CFR 1.76(d)(1) provides that the most recent submission will govern (control) with respect to inconsistencies as between the information provided in an application data sheet, a designation of a correspondence address, or […]

The post MPEP Q & A 287: When inconsistent information is given for an application data sheet, what submission will govern control? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior […]

The post MPEP Q & A 286: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What do the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114, request for continued examination, not apply to? Answer: The provisions of 27 CFR 1.114, Request for continued examination, do not apply to: (1) A provisional application; (2) An application for a utility or plant patent filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) before June 8, 1995; (3) An […]

The post MPEP Q & A 285: What don’t the provisions of 37 CFR 1.114 apply to? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: When will a provisional application be given a filing date? Answer: A provisional application filed on or after December 18, 2013 will be given a filing date as of the date a specification, with or without claims, is received in the Office. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter […]

The post MPEP Q & A 284: When will a provisional application be given a filing date? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List at least 3 special cases (those which are advanced out of turn for examination). Answer: The following is a list of special cases (those which are advanced out of turn for examination): (A) Applications on inventions that are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and when for that […]

The post MPEP Q & A 283: List of special cases appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: Since CPA applications were eliminated for utility and plant applications, what should applicants who wish to continue examination of the same claimed invention after the prosecution of a utility or plant application is closed consider filing? Answer: Effective July 14, 2003, continued prosecution application (CPA) practice was eliminated as to utility and plant applications. […]

The post MPEP Q & A 282: Continued prosecution application practice for utility and plant applications appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What is the time for reply to a final rejection? Answer: The time for reply to a final rejection is as follows: (A) All final rejections setting a 3-month shortened statutory period (SSP) for reply should contain a form paragraph advising applicant that if the first reply is filed within 2 months of the […]

The post MPEP Q & A 281: Time for reply to final rejection appeared first on Patent Education Series.