MPEP 2173.06 – Compact Prosecution

Chapter 2100 – Patentability

Chapter 2173.06 – Practice Compact Prosecution

The old adage here is the earlier indefiniteness issues are identified in an application during examination, the faster an application can be pushed towards disposal (allowance, abandonment). Claim interpretation and a satisfactory explanation of this interpretation by the patent examiner goes a long way, especially when it comes to an applicant trying to understand prior art rejections made by the Office.

There are two key parts of this section:

I. INTERPRET THE CLAIM AND APPLY ART WITH AN EXPLANATION OF HOW AN INDEFINITE TERM IS INTERPRETED

As mentioned above, clear articulation of each and every rejection (101, 102, etc) should be made in a first action.

II. PRIOR ART REJECTION OF CLAIM REJECTED AS INDEFINITE

If there is uncertainty in a claim (i.e. terms of degree, antecedent basis), best effort by the Office should be made to:

  1. Set forth a 112, 2nd (or b), rejection and explain the claim interpretation being made for prior art rejections.
  2. Set forth prior art rejections based on the explained claim interpretation.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s