iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

1502.02: In addition to the signature requirements for patent practitioners registered under 37 CFR 11.6(a)-(c), design patent practitioners must indicate their design patent practitioner status in order to avoid public confusion and make the record clear. For handwritten signatures, …

101

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

1203(II): If the applicant remains diligent, an application for patent that once has been made special and advanced out of turn by the [USPTO] for examination will continue to be special throughout its entire course of prosecution in the Office, including appeal, if any, to the Board.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

1457(IV): A design patent cannot be converted to a utility patent via reissue.

001

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 23/09/2026

2128.01(IV): A publicly displayed document where persons of ordinary skill in the art could see it and are not precluded from copying it can constitute a “printed publication,” even if it is not disseminated by the distribution of reproductions or copies and/or indexed in a library or database.

010

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

2124: References which do not qualify as prior art because they postdate the claimed invention may be relied upon to show the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

1306.02: Where applications have been allowed and a Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due (PTOL-85) has been mailed in each application, a request for simultaneous issuance will be granted.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 14/09/2026

609.04(a)(II): If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, ...

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 10/09/2026

901.08: Global Dossier Public Access provides secure, online access to the file histories of related applications from participating IP Offices. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 31/08/2026

707.07(l): The results of the tests and examples should not normally be questioned by the examiner unless there is reasonable basis for questioning the results. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

2152.02(b): in order for a prior art document to describe a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2), the prior art document need only describe and enable one skilled in the art to make a single species or embodiment of the claimed invention.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 10/08/2026

707.01: Where the assistant examiner has been in the Office but a short time, it is the duty of the primary examiner to review the application thoroughly. The … assistant examiner [explains] the invention and discuss[es] the references [regarded] as most pertinent. 1/3

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 03/08/2026

201.02: A “substitute” application is in essence the duplicate of an application by the same applicant abandoned before the filing of the later application. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 30/07/2026

1504.02: Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting for priority purposes under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and for prior art purposes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 29/07/2026

606.01: Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. … This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 27/07/2026

601.01(f): If the drawing(s) was inadvertently omitted from a nonprovisional application … and the application contains a claim under 37 CFR 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, … 1/3

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 23/07/2026

2111.02(II): During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 22/07/2026

2210: The estoppel provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) are based on inter partes review and post-grant review, respectively, and they only prohibit the filing of a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination, once estoppel attaches; … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 20/07/2026

609.04(a)(I): 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires that each item of information in an IDS be identified properly. U.S. patents must be identified by the inventor, patent number, and issue date. U.S. patent application publications must be identified by … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 16/07/2026

609.04(b)(V): Applicant would not be able to make a statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e) where an item of information was first cited by a foreign patent office, for example, a year before the filing of the IDS, in a communication from that foreign patent office, … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 15/07/2026

1821(VI): [In a PCT Request the] name of a natural person must be indicated by the family name followed by the given name(s). Academic degrees or titles or other indications which are not part of the person’s name must be omitted. The family name should preferably be written in capital letters.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

MPEP 609.04(b)(V): The date on the communication by the foreign patent office begins the three-month period [for making the certification under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1)] in the same manner as the mailing of an Office action starts a three-month shortened statutory period for reply. 1/3

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 09/07/2026

719.02: For a patent application publication to be published with residence information that differs from that originally filed, the revised information must be entered into the Office electronic records at least nine weeks before the publication date of the application.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 08/07/2026

606.01: If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 06/07/2026

604: A non-inventor applicant is not required to state in the substitute statement that he/she has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a person may not … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 01/07/2026

2001.06(b): If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 29/06/2026

608.03: With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 25/06/2026

711.03(c)(II)(A)(4)(c): [W]here abandonment occurred because of the failure to file an appeal brief, the reply required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(b)(1) must be either: (A) an appeal brief …; (B) the filing of an RCE …; or (C) the filing of a continuing application.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 22/06/2026

2013: [Protests by the public] are not limited to prior art documents such as patents and publications, but are intended to include any information, which in the protestor’s opinion, would make or have made the grant of the patent improper (see MPEP § 1901.02). 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 18/06/2026

819: The general policy of the Office is that applicants are not permitted to shift to claim another invention after an election is made and an Office action on the merits is made on the elected invention.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 15/06/2026

2015: Deliberate schemes or established practices to prevent individuals with a duty to disclose under 37 CFR 1.56(c) from obtaining knowledge of material information is not acting in accordance with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56(a). 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 11/06/2026

1820: It is acceptable to have a person sign the international application on behalf of a legal entity if that person submits a statement that the person has the authority to sign the international application on behalf of the legal entity. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 08/06/2026

1823(I): Each date appearing in the international application or in any correspondence must be indicated by the Arabic number of the day, the name of the month and the Arabic number of the year, in that order. 1/3

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 04/06/2026

215.02(b)(I): 37 CFR 1.55(j) … provides that the interim copy of the foreign application must be filed together with a separate cover sheet identifying the foreign application by specifying the application number, country (or intellectual property authority), … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 03/06/2026

602.08(b)(I): Where individual declarations are executed, they must be submitted as individual declarations rather than combined into one declaration (by combining the signature pages).

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 01/06/2026

1205.02(v): The copy of the claims [in an appeal brief] should be double-spaced and the appendix should start on a new page.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 18/05/2026

712.04: The requirements of 37 CFR 1.111(b) must be complied with by pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims patentable over the references in presenting arguments in support of new claims and amendments.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 14/05/2026

130: When a Secrecy Order case is in condition for allowance, a notice of allowability (Form D-10) is issued, thus closing the prosecution. See 37 CFR 5.3(c). 1/2

100

Reposted by MPEP Posts

Dennis Crouch - Patently-O @denniscrouch.bsky.social · 11/05/2026

New on Patently-O: Despite the LKQ decision, design patent prior art rejection rates remain remarkably stable at around 1%. Our latest analysis of Hague application data reveals surprising prosecution trends and a modest recovery pattern post-decision.

patentlyo.com

Prior Art Rejection Rates in Design Patent Prosecution

New disposal-based data on Hague design applications shows §103 rejection rates remain near 1% despite LKQ, with a post-decision dip before modest recovery.

021

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 11/05/2026

607(II): the Office will count the pages of a preliminary amendment present on the filing date of the application, including multiple sets of drawings or multiple sets of a specification, e.g., clean and marked-up versions, in determining the application size fee required. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/05/2026

601.01(f): Applications filed without drawings are initially inspected to determine whether a drawing is referred to in the specification, and if not, whether a drawing is necessary for the understanding of the invention. 35 U.S.C. 113 (first sentence).

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 06/05/2026

602.01(a)(I)(C): An oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 in an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 is no longer required to contain the “reviewed and understands” clause and “duty to disclose” clause of pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.63(b)(2) and (b)(3).

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 04/05/2026

211.02(a)(II): An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 04/05/2026

211.02(a)(II): An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 30/04/2026

1203(II): If the applicant remains diligent, an application for patent that once has been made special and advanced out of turn … for examination will continue to be special throughout its entire course of prosecution in the Office, including appeal, if any, to the Board.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 29/04/2026

1893.01(c): The application size fee for a national stage application (37 CFR 1.492(j)) is determined on the basis of the international application as published by WIPO pursuant to PCT Article 21.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 27/04/2026

214.02: 37 CFR 1.55(e)(2) requires that a petition to accept a delayed claim for priority be accompanied by a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception in 37 CFR 1.55(h), (i), or (j) applies.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 15/04/2026

710.04: There sometimes arises a situation where two different periods for reply are running against an application, the one limited by the regular statutory period, the other by the limited period set in a subsequent Office action. 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 13/04/2026

804.01: a patentee cannot retroactively recover the safe harbor protection of 35 U.S.C. 121 against nonstatutory double patenting by amending a patent that issued from a continuation-in-part application … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/04/2026

216.01(I): a certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 CFR 1.323 may be requested and issued in order to perfect a claim for foreign priority benefit in a patent if … 1/2

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 02/04/2026

2172.01: “Broad language in the disclosure (including the abstract) omitting an allegedly critical feature tends to rebut the argument of criticality … [and] features that are merely preferred are not critical.” [Quoting In re Goffe, 542 F.2d 564, 567 (CCPA 1976).]

000