iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

707.07(g): Certain technical rejections (e.g., negative limitations, indefiniteness) should not be made where the examiner, recognizing the limitations of the English language, is not aware of an improved manner of reciting the claimed invention.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

The submission by an applicant of misleading or inaccurate statements of facts during the prosecution of applications for patent has resulted in the patents issuing on such applications being held unenforceable.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

… for the purpose of a violation of 37 CFR 11.18 (e.g., was submitted to cause unnecessary delay). Nevertheless, it is highly advisable for a practitioner to advise a client or third party that any information so provided must be reliable and not misleading.

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

… duty under 37 CFR 11.18 met so long as the practitioner has no knowledge of information that is contrary to the information provided by the applicant or third party or would otherwise indicate that the information provided by the applicant or third party was so provided …

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

410: When a practitioner is submitting information (e.g., a statement of fact) from the applicant or a third party, or relying upon information from the applicant or a third party in their arguments, the Office will consider a practitioner's “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” …

100

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

… should make an appropriate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 until such time as a deposit in accordance with these regulations is actually made or a written assurance is received in the patent application that such a deposit will be made upon an indication of allowability of the application.

000

MPEP Posts @mpep.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

2411.01: Under 37 CFR 1.809(a), once the examiner has determined that access to a biological material is necessary, and there is no information that would support the conclusion that access is currently available in accordance with these regulations, the examiner …

100

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

… a design patent practitioner must place the word “design” (in any format) adjacent to their signature (37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)), and for S-signatures, a design patent practitioner must place the word “design” (in any format) adjacent to the last forward slash of their S-signature (37 CFR 1.4(d)(2)(ii)).

000

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

... e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiners in conducting searches.

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

This includes all international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as well as patent applications from World Intellectual Property Organization-Centralized Access to Search and Examination (WIPO-CASE) participating offices. 2/2

000

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

If the examiner questions the results, the appropriate claims should be rejected as being based on an insufficient disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 2/2

000

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

… the primary examiner may indicate how the references are to be applied in any prior art rejection and explain the basis for any non-prior art grounds of rejection. 3/3

000

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

The primary examiner may indicate the action to be taken, whether restriction or election of species is to be required, or whether the claims are to be considered on their merits. If action on the merits is to be given and claims rejected, … 2/3

100

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

Current practice does not require applicant to insert in the specification reference to the earlier application; however, attention should be called to the earlier application. 2/2

000

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

… in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. 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. 2/2

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

David Boundy's "What Every Patent and Trademark Lawyer Should Understand About the MPEP, TMEP, and Other Guidance: How to Use (and Defend Against) the MPEP to be a Better Advocate." It's a must for anyone trying to understand old Manny (or his TM counterpart Trady). patentlyo.com/media/2023/0...

patentlyo.com

110

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

… the applicant may submit the omitted drawing(s) by way of an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(b). The amendment must be by way of a petition under 37 CFR 1.53(e) accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f). 3/3

000

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

… or a claim under 37 CFR 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed [U.S. or international] application that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, … 2/3

101

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

… a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. 2/2

000

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

… there is no estoppel as to the Office maintaining an existing ex parte reexamination proceeding. 2/2

000

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

… the applicant, patent application publication number, and publication date. The Office will also accept a citation in an IDS where a U.S. patent application publication is identified using the inventor instead of the applicant. 2/2

000

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

… and the same item of information is once again cited by another foreign patent office within three months prior to the filing of the IDS in the Office. 2/2

000

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

The date which begins the three-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. 3/3

000

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

If the communication contains two dates, the mailing date of the communication is the one which begins the three-month period. 2/3

100

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

… execute a substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64 unless that person has reviewed and understands the contents of the application, including the claims, and is aware of the duty to disclose to the Office all information known to the person to be material to patentability. 2/2

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

… The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. 2/2

000