Question 1

A registered practitioner filed a first patent application wherein claims 1-10 claims are directed to a widget and claims 11-20 are directed to a method of making a widget. Following a proper restriction requirement, claims 1-10 were elected for prosecution. The primary examiner rejected claims 1-10. The practitioner filed a reply that only consisted of argument. The examiner was unpersuaded by the argument, and entered a final rejection of claims 1-10. In reply, the practitioner filed a continuing application containing claims 1-10 directed to a widget, and claims 11-20 directed to a method of using a widget. In the continuing application, the examiner enters a new written restriction requirement requiring a provisional election between claims 1-10 and claims 11-20. The practitioner believes the new restriction requirement is improper and would like the rejection in the parent application reviewed as well. The new restriction requirement has not been made final. Which of the following best describes whether and why, in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as related by the MPEP, the reply to the restriction requirement may be by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 1002.02(c) identifies among the matters petitionable to and decided by the Technology Center Directors "Petitions from a final decision of examiner requiring restriction in patent applications, 37 CFR 1.144, MPEP § 818.03(c)." Hence (A), and (C), which provide for review before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are clearly erroneous. Since the restriction requirement is not yet "final" no review is possible at this juncture. Answers (A), (B), (C), and (D) are also incorrect because no claim is under rejection hence no appeal is possible. See MPEP § 1205, which provides that under 37 CFR 1.191(a), an applicant for a patent dissatisfied with the primary examiner's decision in the second or final 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 set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(b) within the time period provided under 37 CFR 1.134.and 1.136. A notice of appeal may be filed after any of the claims has been twice rejected, regardless of whether the claim(s) has/have been finally rejected. The limitation of "twice or finally...rejected" does not have to be related to a particular application. For example, if any claim was rejected in a parent application, and the claim is again rejected in a continuing application, then applicant will be entitled to file an appeal in the continuing application, even if the claim was rejected only once in the continuing application.

Question 2

A registered practitioner filed in the USPTO a client's utility patent application on December 30, 2002. The application was filed with a request for nonpublication, certifying that the invention disclosed in the U.S. application has not and will not be the subject of an application in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen month publication. Subsequently, the client files an application in Japan on the invention and some recent improvements to the invention. The improvements are not disclosed or supported in the utility application. Japan is a country that requires eighteen month publication. Two months after filing the application in Japan, and before filing any other papers in the USPTO, the client remembers that a nonpublication request was filed and informs the practitioner about the application that was filed in Japan. Which of the following courses of action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

See 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii); 37 CFR § 1.213; MPEP § 901.03 for information on nonpublication requests. See 37 CFR § 1.137(f); MPEP § 711.03(c), under the heading "3. Abandonment for Failure to Notify the Office of a Foreign Filing After Submission of a Non-Publication Request." (B) is incorrect. The notice of foreign filing can be filed as late as 45 days after the foreign filing before the U.S. application becomes abandoned. (C) is incorrect. See MPEP § 608.04(a). The improvements would constitute new matter and new matter cannot be added to the disclosure of an application after the filing date of the application. (D) is not correct. The applicant is required to provide notice of foreign filing, not merely rescind the nonpublication request within the appropriate time. (E) is not correct. The applicant was required to provide notice of foreign filing within 45 days of filing in Japan, and two months have passed. As a result, a petition to revive under 37 CFR § 1.137(b) is required for examination to continue. Also see 37 CFR § 1.137(f).

Question 3

In accordance with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP, which of the following is not a "printed publication" under 35 USC 102(b), with respect to a patent application filed June 1, 2002?

Accepted Answer

The internal report was intended to be confidential and therefore is not a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See MPEP § 2128.01, under the heading "Internal Documents Intended To Be Confidential Are Not 'Printed Publications," citing In re George, , 2 USPQ2d 1880 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1987) states "Research reports disseminated in-house to only those persons who understood the policy of confidentiality regarding such reports are not printed publications even though the policy was not specifically stated in writing." Answer (A) is incorrect. An orally presented paper can be a "printed publication" if copies are available without restriction. The paper is a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See MPEP § 2128.01. Answer (B) is incorrect. The thesis is a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See MPEP § 2128.01. Answer (D) is incorrect. An electronic publication disclosed on the Internet is considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was posted. The reference is a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See MPEP § 2128. Answer (E) is incorrect. There is no need to prove that anyone actually looked at a document. The manual is a "printed publication" under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See MPEP § 2128.

Question 4

Buddy is a recent father and a machinist at a local machine shop. One day while driving to work, Buddy conceived an idea for an improved baby stroller. He quickly worked out many of the details of how to build such an improved stroller, but he still had questions. Buddy later explained his idea to his employer and showed the employer detailed preliminary drawings of the stroller without any agreement as to confidentiality. Buddy wanted use of his employer's machine shop to build a model. Buddy's employer was also excited about the stroller idea and its commercial potential, and the two quickly reached an oral agreement. Buddy would have free use of the machine shop equipment and supplies after regular business hours to work on his model. In exchange, Buddy agreed to assign any patent rights in his invention to the employer for $1,000.00. Only Buddy and, occasionally, his employer were ever present in the shop when Buddy was working on the stroller. Buddy finalized the design just over a year later, and a nonprovisional patent application was on file within a month of finalization along with a recently executed written assignment of the rights in the invention to Buddy's employer. During prosecution of the patent application, the examiner learned of the oral agreement between Buddy and his employer, and rejected the claims on the basis that the invention was on sale more than one year before the application filing date. Determine which of the following would provide the most reasonable basis for traversing the rejection in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.

Accepted Answer

35 U.S.C. § 102(b); MPEP § 2133.03(b). MPEP § 2133.03(b), under the heading "I. The Meaning Of "Sale," and subheading "D. A Sale of Rights Is Not a Sale of the Invention and Will Not in Itself Bar a Patent," states "'[a]n assignment or sale of the rights, such as patent rights, in the invention is not a sale of 'the invention' within the meaning of section 102(b).'" The sale must involve the delivery of the physical invention itself. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1265, 229 USPQ 805, 809 (Fed. Cir. 1986)." (A) is incorrect. Although reexaminations are limited to prior art patents and printed publications, that limitation is not present in original prosecution. MPEP § 2133.03(b) states "An impermissible sale has occurred if there was a definite sale, or offer to sell, more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the U.S. application and the subject matter of the sale, or offer to sell, fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered the claimed invention obvious by its addition to the prior art. Ferag AG v. Quipp, Inc., 45 F.3d 1562, 1565, 33 USPQ2d 1512, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 1995)." (B) and (D) are incorrect. There is no requirement that on-sale activity be public. See MPEP § 2133.03(b), under the heading "III. Sale By Inventor, Assignee Or Others Associated With The Inventor In The Course Of Business," and subheading "A. Sale Activity Need Not Be Public." (E) is wrong at least because an on-sale bar does not require an actual sale. A bar can also be based on an offer to sell. MPEP § 2133.03(b), under the heading "II. Offers For Sale."

Question 5

Ben hires a registered practitioner to prosecute his patent application. The practitioner drafted an application having fifteen claims. Claim 1 is independent, and each of claims 2-15 are singularly dependent upon claim 1. A proper non-final Office action is mailed to the practitioner. Following consultation with Ben, the practitioner timely prepared, signed, and filed a reply to the Office action containing an amendment that does not add new matter, but does add claims 16-27. Each of claims 16-27 is directed to the same invention sought to be patented through claims 1-15. The dependency of each of claims 16-27 reads "any of claims 5-15." For purposes of fee calculation in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, how many total claims are contained in the application after the amendment is entered?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.75; MPEP § 608.01(n). As explained in MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading "Multiple Dependent Claims," subheading "Acceptable Multiple Dependent Claim Wording" the multiple dependent claim wording of new claims 16-27 is proper. See, for example, "any one of the preceding claims," and "in any of claims 1-3 or 7-9." 37 CFR § 1.75(c) states "For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein." Therefore, claims 16-27 would each have a claim value of eleven and the total number of claims for fee calculation is one hundred forty-seven (12 x 11 = 132 + 15 = 147). Answers (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are not the correct total. Answer (C) is incorrect because the multiple dependent claims have not been calculated in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.75. Answer (E) is incorrect because the question asks for the total after the amendment adding claims 16-27 has been entered.

Question 6

S. patent was granted on May 8, 2001. The sole independent claim in the patent is directed to a combination of elements ABCD. A registered practitioner filed a reissue application on April 11, 2003 to narrow sole independent claim. In the reissue application, the independent claim is amended to a combination to elements ABCDE. The reissue application is accompanied by a transmittal letter stating that the application was filed to narrow a claim, that all inventors could not be located to sign the reissue oath or declaration at that time, and that a declaration would be submitted in due course. No other amendments to the claims were filed on April 11, 2003. On May 8, 2003, a declaration signed by all inventors is filed declaring that they had claimed less than they had a right to claim, and that the error arose without deceptive intent. The inventors also filed on May 8, 2003 a preliminary amendment deleting element A from the sole independent claim leaving elements BCDE. The amendment and declaration are filed using the provisions of 37 CFR 1.10. The practitioner included an authorization to charge the practitioner's deposit account for any necessary fees. Which of the following actions by the primary the examiner in the first Office action is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

MPEP §§ 1403 and 1412.03, under the heading "When A Broadened Claim Can Be Presented." A broadening reissue claim must be filed within the two years from the grant of the original patent. (D) is the most correct and the examiner should examine the case as any other application and address appropriate issues concerning reissue examination. See Switzer v. Sockman, 333 F.2d 935, 142 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1964) (a similar rule in interferences). Since applicant filed the amendment by Express Mail, the amendment is treated as being filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the US Postal Service. Therefore, (A), (B) and (C) are incorrect answers. A reissue application can be granted a filing date without an oath or declaration, or without the filing fee being present. See 37 CFR § 1.53(f). Applicant will be given a period of time to provide the missing parts and to pay the surcharge under 37 CFR § 1.16(e). See MPEP § 1410.01. Choice (E) is not correct since the mere deletion of an element of a claim does not automatically raise a ground of rejection based on the recapture doctrine. See MPEP § 1412.02.

Question 7

A registered practitioner files an international application submission that includes a description, claims and drawings in the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) on Wednesday, January 8, 2003. The submission did not include the required request, international and search fees, or the designation of a PCT contracting State. The RO/US mails an "Invitation to Correct the Purported International Application," dated January 10, 2003, to the practitioner indicating that the designation of at least one Contracting State, as required by PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b), was not included. A one-month period for response is set in the Invitation. On Monday, February 10, 2003, the practitioner submits by facsimile a designation sheet of the Request Form designating every available Contracting State, and authorization to charge all required fees. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, will the application be accorded an international filing date?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d); MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)); and MPEP §1817.01. As stated in MPEP § 1817.01, "[a]ll designations must be made in the international application on filing; none may be added later." The application will not be accorded an international filing date since the practitioner has tried to cure the failure to designate at least one contracting State by filing a paper using facsimile which is not permitted according to 37 CFR §§ 1.6(d)(3) and 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d). (A) is wrong because applicant has failed to comply with Article 11(1)(iii)(b) on such date. See MPEP § 1810 (reproducing PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). (B) is wrong because according to 37 CFR 1.6(d)(3) and 37 CFR 1.8 (a)(2)(i)(d), applicant cannot file an international application by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing 37 CFR § 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). Since no designations were included on filing, the application papers cannot be accorded an international filing date. See PCT Article 11(1)(iii)(b). Applicant cannot correct this by filing the designation sheet by facsimile. See MPEP § 502 (reproducing Rule 1.6(d)(3)); MPEP § 512 (reproducing Rule 1.8(a)(2)(i)(d)). (D) is wrong because according to PCT Rule 80.5, when a response is due on a day where the receiving Office is not open for business, applicant has until the next business day. See Appendix T of the MPEP. (E) is incorrect because (C) is correct.

Question 8

Inventor Tip, a scientist in a pencil research laboratory, theorized that, based on the abrasive properties of moon dust, a highly efficient erasure can be made by adding a trace amount of moon dust to a normal pencil erasure formulation. Point, in the Sales department, determined that this would be perfect for a high end product. A U.S. patent application has been filed claiming a pencil erasure formulation with a trace amount of moon dust. An example of how to make the formulation with specified percentages of moon dust is presented therein. Thereafter, Tip learns about the duty to disclose information and he recalls signing a declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 stating that he had reviewed and understood the contents of the specification including the claims. Tip becomes concerned that the use of moon dust was only a theory and that to obtain patent would mislead the public to conclude that moon dust was actually used and found to be effective. The application has been allowed, but the issue fee has not yet been paid. Which of the following is most in accord with patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.56; MPEP § 2001.05. 37 CFR § 1.56(a) sets forth a duty to disclose information that is material to patentability. MPEP § 2001.05 states that "information is not material unless is comes within the definition of 37 CFR 1.56(b)(1) or (b)(2). If information is not material, there is no duty to disclose the information to the Office." The information that moon dust was never actually used is not material as defined under 37 CFR § 1.56(b)(1) or (2) which state that information is material if "(b)(1) It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or (2) It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in: (i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on b y the Office or, (ii) Asserting an argument of patentability." That the use of the moon dust as part of an erasure formulation was only theorized and not actually used is acceptable as is an example for making it. MPEP § 608.01(p), II, under the heading "Simulated or Predicted Test Results Or Prophetic Examples," states that "[s]imulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. ... Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted." Care, however, must be taken not to state that an experiment was actually run or conducted when it was not and that "[n]o results should be presented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved." MPEP § 2004, item 8. (A) is incorrect. 37 CFR § 1.56(a) requires that individuals associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application have a duty to disclose information to the Office. 37 CFR § 1.56(c) defines which individuals are associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application and that "(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are: (1) Each inventor named in the application; (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and (3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application." Point is part of the Sales department and no facts were presented that substantively involved him in the preparation or prosecution of the application. Additionally, as noted in the explanation relating answer to (D), the information given to Point by Tip was not material information. (B) is incorrect. While Tip would be an individual identified under 37 CFR § 1.56(c), there is no material information to be disclosed as noted in the explanation to (D). (C) is incorrect. As noted in the explanation relating to (D), the information is not material. Additionally, as noted in the explanation to answer (A), Point is not an individual defined by 37 CFR 1.56(c) as owing a duty. (E) is incorrect. As there is no requirement that it be explicitly stated that an invention has or has not been actually conducted, as noted in the explanation of (D), the prosecution need not be continued for the purpose of supplying an information disclosure statement regarding the development of the moon rock erasure formulation.

Question 9

With respect to establishing "reasonable diligence" for under 35 USC 102(g), which of the following statements is or are in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) The inventor and his attorney must drop all other work and concentrate on the particular invention involved.
(2) The entire period during which diligence is required must be accounted for by either affirmative acts or acceptable excuses.
(3) Work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice.

Accepted Answer

The entire period for which diligence is required must be accounted for. MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading "The Entire Period During Which Diligence Is Required Must Be Accounted For By Either Affirmative Acts Or Acceptable Excuses," states "[a]n applicant must account for the entire period during which diligence is required. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919, 150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966) (Merely stating that there were no weeks or months that the invention was not worked on is not enough.)." MPEP § 2138.06, under the heading "Work Relied Upon To Show Reasonable Diligence Must Be Directly Related To The Reduction To Practice," states "[t]he work relied upon to show reasonable diligence must be directly related to the reduction to practice of the invention in issue. Naber v.Cricchi, 567 F.2d 382, 384, 196 USPQ 294, 296 (CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 826 (1978). 'U]nder some circumstances an inventor should also be able to rely on work on closely related inventions as support for diligence toward the reduction to practice on an invention in issue.'" (A) is incorrect because statement (1) is not true - an inventor or his attorney need not drop all other work to establish reasonable diligence. Emery v. Ronden, 188 USPQ 264, 268 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1974); MPEP § 2138.06. (B) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (3). (C) is incorrect because it does not include true statement (2). (D) is incorrect because it includes false statement (1).

Question 10

In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, which of the following can a third party submit in a pending published application within two months from the publication date where the submission identifies the application to which it is directed by application number and includes the appropriate fee?

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Rule 1.99 provides that a third party may submit in a published application a foreign-language publication and an English language translation of pertinent portions of the publication. The submission must "identify the application to which it is directed by application number," . . "include the fee set forth in § 1.17(p);" include "a list of the patents or publications submitted for consideration by the Office, including the date of publication of each patent or publication;". . . a " copy of each listed patent or publication in written form or at least the pertinent portions;" and an "English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon." (A) is incorrect. 37 CFR § 1.99 does not authorize a third-party submission of materials or things other than patents or publications. See 37 CFR § 1.99; MPEP § 610. Thus, submission of a videotape under §1.99 is not authorized. (B) is incorrect. A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99 may not include explanations. See 37 CFR § 1.99(d); MPEP § 610. (C) is incorrect. A third-party submission under 37 CFR 1.99 may not include markings or highlights on the publications. See 37 CFR § 1.99(d); MPEP § 610. (D) is incorrect because a protest cannot be filed in a published application. See 37 CFR § 1.291(a)(1); MPEP 1901.06.

Question 11

Which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as set forth in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i), under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Independent Physical Acts (Post-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of this type of statutory process include …[a] method of controlling a mechanical robot which relies upon storing data in a computer that represents various types of mechanical movements of the robot, using a computer processor to calculate positioning of the robot in relation to given tasks to be performed by the robot, and controlling the robot 's movement and position based on the calculated position." (A) is a true statement, and is therefore an incorrect answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2105 a " new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter." (B) is an incorrect answer. As set forth in MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i), under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Manipulation of Data Representing Physical Objects or Activities (Pre-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of claimed processes that do not limit the claimed invention to pre-computing safe harbor include: . . . - selecting a set of arbitrary measurement point values ([In re] Sarkar, 588 F.2d [1330] at 1331, 200 USPQ [132] at 135)." (D) is an incorrect answer. MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(2)(b)(i) under the heading "Safe Harbors," subheading "Independent Physical Acts (Post-Computer Process Activity)," states that "[e]xamples of claimed process that do not achieve a practical application include:-step of 'updating alarm limits' found to constitute changing the number value of a variable to represent the result of the calculation (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978)." (E) is a true statement, and therefore is an incorrect answer. MPEP § 2106(IV)(B)(1), under the heading "Nonstatutory Subject Matter" states "[In re]Warmerdam, 33 F.3d [1354,] at 1361, 31 USPQ2d [1754,] at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory)."

Question 12

Inventor Jones files an application under 35 USC 111(a) on March 27, 2002. The application is a continuation of an international application, which was filed on December 1, 2000. The international application claims priority to a U.S. provisional application filed December 2, 1999. The international application designated the United States, and was published in English under PCT Article 21(2). All applications contained the exact same disclosure. In accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP, what, if any, is the earliest prior art date under 35 USC 102(e) for the publication of the 35 U.S.C. 111(a) application under 35 USC 122(b)?

Accepted Answer

See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1) in general and Example 7 in particular. (A) is not correct as the publication under 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) does have a prior art date under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). (B) and (D) are not correct because March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 are not the earliest prior art date under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The publication has an earlier prior art date than March 27, 2002 and December 1, 2000 because of its benefit/priority claims to the international application and the provisional application. See MPEP § 706.02(f)(1). (C) is not correct as it is not a filing date for any application in this question.

Question 13

Which of the following statements is or are in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?
(1) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, the proper question is whether the differences between the prior art and the claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
(2) In a 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis, an inventor's assertion the he has discovered the source or cause of an identified problem should never be considered.
(3) A 35 USC 103 obviousness analysis requires consideration not just of what is literally recited in the claims, but also of any properties inherent in the claimed subject matter that are disclosed in the specification.

Accepted Answer

The principle in Statement 3, that consideration of inherent properties is part of proper consideration of the invention as a whole, is recited in MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading "Disclosed Inherent Properties Are Part Of 'As A Whole' Inquiry," and in In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977). (A) is incorrect, because the proper question is whether the invention as a whole, not just the differences, would have been obvious. See MPEP § 2141.02, under the heading "The Claimed Invention As A Whole Must Be Considered," (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 218 USPQ 871 (Fed. Cir. 1983). (B) is incorrect because an examiner should consider such assertions by an inventor as part of the "subject matter as a whole." See MPEP § 2141.02 (citing In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969)). (D) and (E) are incorrect because they include incorrect Statements 1 and/or 2.

Question 14

A registered practitioner filed a design patent application on December 30, 2003. The application was filed with an inventor-executed declaration naming Jon Jones as the sole inventor, who has not assigned the invention and is not under an obligation to assign his invention. The filing receipt was recently received, indicating that the application will be published on Thursday, July 1, 2004. In reviewing the filing receipt the practitioner realizes that the typed name of the inventor contained a typographical error (an "h" was missing) and that the correct spelling was John Jones. Which of the following would be the course of action at the least expense to correct the error in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

See MPEP § 605.04(b), which states "Except for correction of a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor's name, a request to have the name changed to the signed version or any other corrections in the name of the inventor(s) will not be entertained...When a typographical or transliteration error in the spelling of an inventor's name is discovered during pendency of an application, a petition is not required, nor is a new oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 needed. The U.S.[PTO] should simply be notified of the error and reference to the notification paper will be made on the previously filed oath or declaration by the Office." (A), (B) and (D) could result in the spelling of Jon's name being corrected in USPTO records, but would do so at a higher cost to applicant, and therefore neither one is the most correct answer. Furthermore, (A) is also not correct in that if a request to add John Jones as an inventor was to be filed, another request (and fee) to delete Jon Jones would be required. (B) is wrong because a petition under 37 CFR § 1.182 is not required if the error in the name is a typographical error, and the facts specify that the error in the spelling of "John" as "Jon" is a typographical error. (D) is not correct because not only would filing a continuation create an additional expensive, but filing a new application could also delay examination. (E) is not correct because pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.2, business with the Office is to be conducted in writing, and, even more importantly, because "it is improper for anyone, including counsel, to alter, rewrite, or partly fill in any part of the application, including the oath or declaration, after execution of the oath or declaration by the applicant." MPEP § 605.04(a).

Question 15

Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.

Accepted Answer

35 U.S.C. § 302; 37 CFR § 1.552; and MPEP § 2258. MPEP § 2258, under the heading "Prior Patents Or Printed Publications," states "[r]ejections on prior art in reexamination proceedings may only be made on the basis of prior patents or printed publications. Prior art rejections may be based upon the following portions of 35 U.S.C. 102: . . .(e)." (A), (B), (D) and (E) are incorrect. MPEP § 2258, under the heading "Matters Other Than Patents or Printed Publications," states "[r]ejections will not be based on matters other than patents or printed publications, such as public use or sale, inventorship, 35 U.S.C. 101, fraud, etc. In this regard, see In re Lanham, 1 USPQ2d 1877 (Comm'r Pat. 1986), and Stewart Systems v. Comm'r of Patents and Trademarks, 1 USPQ2d 1879 (E.D. Va. 1986). A rejection on prior public use or sale, insufficiency of disclosure, etc., cannot be made even if it relies on a prior patent or printed publication. Prior patents or printed publications must be applied under an appropriate portion of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 when making a rejection." Reexamination is limited to substantially new questions of patentability based on patents and publications.

Question 16

Which, if any, of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

(A) is not in accord the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP. Regarding (A), MPEP § 601.05, states ("[i]f an application is filed with an application data sheet correctly setting forth the citizenship of inventor B, and an executed 37 CFR 1.63 declaration setting forth a different incorrect citizenship of inventor B, the Office will capture the citizenship of inventor B found in the application data sheet. Applicant, however, must submit a supplemental oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.67 by inventor B setting forth the correct citizenship even though it appears correctly in the application data sheet. … If, however, the error is one of residence, no change would be required (37 CFR 1.76(d)(2))." (B) is not in accord the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP. As for (B), MPEP § 602, under the heading "Sole Or Joint Designation," states "[w]hen joint inventors execute separate oaths or declarations, each oath or declaration should make reference to the fact that the affiant is a joint inventor together with each of the other inventors indicating them by name." The examiner should notify the inventors that their oaths or declarations are defective and that new oaths or declarations are required. (C) is incorrect. MPEP § 608.01(n), under the heading "II. Treatment Of Improper Dependent Claims," states "[c]laims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) by using form paragraph 7.36." The claim should not be rejected. Further as for (C), MPEP § 608.01(n), under heading "III. Infringement Test," states "[a] dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, simply because there is a question as to (1) the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim, or (2) whether the further limitation in fact changes the scope of the dependent claim from that of the claim from which it depends. The test for a proper dependent claim under the fourth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is whether the dependent claim includes every limitation of the claim from which it depends. The test is not one of whether the claims differ in scope." (D) is not in accord the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP. As for (D), MPEP § 609, under heading "(B)(5) Statement Under 37 CFR 1.97(e)," states "[t]he date on the communication by the foreign patent office begins the 3-month period in the same manner as the mailing of an Office action starts a 3-month shortened statutory period for reply . … The date which begins the 3-month period is not the date the communication was received by a foreign associate or the date it was received by a U.S. registered practitioner."

Question 17

Applicant filed a provisional patent application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(b) on Tuesday, November 30, 1999. On Tuesday, November 28, 2000, applicant filed a nonprovisional application in the USPTO under 35 USC 111(a) that properly claimed priority under 35 USC 119(e) to the filing date of the provisional application. On Wednesday, November 29, 2000, applicant filed an international application for patent in the USPTO under the Patent Cooperation Treaty that designated the United States and properly claimed priority to both the provisional and the nonprovisional applications. On Friday, July 28, 2001, applicant filed a national stage application in the USPTO under 35 USC 371, providing all of the requirements under 35 USC 371 and properly claiming benefit to the filing date of the provisional application under 35 USC 119(e) and the nonprovisional application under 35 USC 120. The national stage application was published on Tuesday, January 30, 2002 and issued as a patent on Tuesday, February 4, 2003. Assuming no patent term extension or adjustment, the patent term ends on the date that is 20 years from which of the following dates in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

The filing date of the nonprovisional application, (B), is the correct answer. See MPEP § 201.04(b), which states "[t]he [Uruguay Agreement Round Act] provides a mechanism to enable domestic applicants to quickly and inexpensively file provisional applications. Under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) applicants are entitled to claim the benefit of priority in a given application in the United States. The domestic priority period will not count in the measurement of the 20-year patent term. See 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(3). Thus, domestic applicants are placed on the same footing with foreign applicants with respect to the patent term." A provisional application is filed under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) and according to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(3), such a filing date is not taken into account in determining patent term. Therefore, (A) is incorrect. The fact pattern states that benefit was properly claimed in the international application to both the provisional application and the national application and that the national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 claimed benefit to the filing date of the nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. § 120. According to 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2), where an application contains a reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c), the patent term ends 20 years from the date on which the earliest such application was filed; in this fact pattern that date would be (B), the filing date of the nonprovisional application. The filing date of the international application, (C), is not correct in view of 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) since the international application claimed the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the filing date of the nonprovisional application. The date of commencement of the national stage in the United States, (D), is not correct, since the date of commencement of the national stage in the U.S. is not relevant in the determination of the patent term of a patent issuing form the national stage of the international application. Furthermore, as noted in (B) above, since the international application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120 to the nonprovisional application, the patent term of the patent issuing from the national stage is measured from the filing date of the nonprovisional application. Finally, the issue date, (E), is not correct, because in 1994, 35 U.S.C. § 154 was amended to provide that for applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of a patent begins on the date the patent issues and ends on the date that is twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, of the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application or applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c), twenty years from the filing date of the earliest of such application(s).

Question 18

Which of the following best describes a situation for which a reply to the examiner's Office action including both an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 and an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 may be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

MPEP § 715, under the heading "Situations Where 37 CFR 1.131 Affidavits or Declarations Can Be Used," provides that an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.131 may be used to antedate a reference that qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) but not 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Also, MPEP § 716 provides that objective evidence traversing a rejection may be presented in a timely submitted affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.132. As for (A), an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.131 would not serve any useful purpose in those situations. See MPEP § 715. Regarding (C), an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.131 would be inappropriate. See MPEP § 715, under the heading "Situations Where 37 CXFR 1.131 Affidavits or Declarations Are Inappropriate." As for (D) and (E), a reply including affidavits under 37 CFR § 1.131 and 37 CFR § 1.132 normally would be considered untimely under the circumstances set forth in those answers. See 37 CFR §§ 1.116, 1.192(a) and 1.195. Also, see MPEP §§ 715.09 and 716.01. Consequently, (B) is the most correct answer.

Question 19

A patent application is filed disclosing and claiming a system for detecting expired parking meters. The specification fully supports the original, sole claim. The application discloses that the "electronics control unit" contains a comparator and an alarm. The application includes several drawings. One of the drawings shows a block diagram of the system, illustrating the electronics control unit as a box, labeled "electronics control unit." The sole claim of the application is as follows: The claim. A system for detecting expired parking meters, comprising: a timer mechanism; an infrared sensor for detecting the presence of a parked vehicle; and an electronics control unit, including a comparator and an alarm, coupled to the infrared sensor and the timer mechanism. A final Office action, dated February 3, 2004, indicates that the sole claim contains allowable subject matter, but includes an objection to the specification, on the grounds that the subject matter of the electronics control unit, though described in a sufficiently specific and detailed manner in the original specification, was required to be shown in the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83. The Office action did not set a period for reply. Determine which of the following actions, if any, comports with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP for overcoming the objection.

Accepted Answer

37 CFR § 1.83(a); MPEP §§ 608.01(l) and 706.03(o). MPEP § 608.01(l) states "[w]here subject matter not shown in a drawing…is claimed in the specification as filed, and such original claim itself constitutes a clear disclosure of this subject matter, then the claim should be treated on its merits, and requirement made to amend the drawing and description to show this subject matter…It is the drawing…that [is] defective, not the claim. It is, of course, to be understood that this disclosure in the claim must be sufficiently specific and detailed to support the necessary amendment of the drawing…" MPEP § 608.02(d) and 706.03(o). MPEP § 706.03(o), state "[i]f subject matter capable of illustration is originally claimed and it is not shown in the drawing, the claim is not rejected but applicant is required to add it to the drawing. See MPEP § 608.01(l)." (A), (C), and (D) are incorrect. See the foregoing quotation from MPEP § 706.03(o). (A) and (C) also are incorrect because objections to drawings are petitionable, not appealable. MPEP §§ 608.02, under the heading "Receipt of Drawing After Filing Date," and 1002. (D) is incorrect because the petition, filed more than six months after the final rejection, is not timely. A timely petition would be filed within two months from the mailing date of the action or notice from which relief is requested. See 35 U.S.C. § 133; 37 CFR §§ 1.181(f), 1.134 and 1.135(a); and MPEP § 710.01. (E) is incorrect because (B) is correct.

Question 20

Co-inventors Smith and Jones filed an application for a patent on a cell phone, on May 15, 2002. They received a first Office action from a primary examiner rejecting the claims under 35 USC 102(a) over a publication by Bell and Watson, published on April 5, 2002, describing a cell phone having all the same features as is claimed in the patent application. In reply, the co-inventors each submitted a declaration under 37 CFR 1.131 stating that they had actually reduced the invention to practice no later than March 13, 2002. However, the declarations failed to include two claimed features. Neither the particular antenna needed to enable the cell phone could receive transmissions from the local cellular transmitting tower, nor a detachable carrying strap was included in the declarations. As evidence of their prior reduction to practice, Smith and Jones submitted their co-authored journal article. The journal article contained a figure of the cell phone as described in the declarations. That is, the cell phone shown in the figure of the article lacked an antenna and a detachable strap. The article was received by the journal on March 13, 2002, and was published on April 30, 2002. The cell phones shown in the figure in the Bell and Watson publication, and in the Smith and Jones patent application have the particular antenna and a detachable strap. Which of the following actions, if taken by the examiner, would be the most proper in accordance with the patent laws, rules and the procedures as related in the MPEP?

Accepted Answer

MPEP (8th Ed.) § 715.07, under the heading "Facts and Documentary Evidence" states that "The essential thing to be shown under 37 CFR 1.131 is priority of invention and this may be done by any satisfactory evidence of the fact. FACTS, not conclusions, must be alleged. Evidence in the form of exhibits may accompany the affidavit or declaration. ... The affidavit or declaration must state FACTS and produce such documentary evidence and exhibits in support thereof as are available to show conception and completion of invention in this country or in a NAFTA or WTO member country (MPEP § 715.07(c)) at least the conception being at a date prior to the effective date of the reference. ... In general, proof of actual reduction to practice requires a showing that the apparatus actually existed and worked for its intended purpose." Here, the co-inventors admit, and the documentary exhibits relied upon demonstrate that they failed to reduce the claimed invention to practice prior to the publication date of the Bell and Watson reference. It is also apparent that due to the lack of an antenna in the cell phone described in Smith's and Jones's declarations and journal article, that the cell phone which was reduced to practice prior to the publication date of the Bell and Watson article would not have worked for its intended purpose. Accordingly, the examiner should maintain the rejection and make it final. (B) and (C) are incorrect choices since the evidence of record shows that Smith and Jones are unable to overcome the prior art. (D) is wrong because an original copy of the published figure which shows that Smith and Jones were not in possession of the claimed invention prior to Bell and Watson publication cannot help their case. (E) is incorrect because prior art under 102(a) is not a statutory bar.

Quiz 1: Patent Officer

In accordance with the patent law, rules and procedures as related by the MPEP, which of the following is not a "printed publication" under 35 USC 102(b) , with respect to a patent application filed June 1, 2002?

Which of the following is patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 in accordance with the patent laws, rules, and procedures as set forth in the MPEP?

Recommend which of the following rejections under 35 USC 102 in a reexamination proceeding is in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.

Which, if any, of the following statements is in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?

Which of the following best describes a situation for which a reply to the examiner's Office action including both an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.131 and an affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 may be in accord with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP?