Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
706.02(m) Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-2] - 700 Examination of Applications
706.02(m) Form Paragraphs for Use in Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-2]
The following form paragraphs should be used in making the appropriate rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103.
¶ 7.20 Statement of Statutory Basis, 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Examiner Note
1. The statute is not to be cited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits employing 35 U.S.C. 103(a) and final rejections. Where the statute is being applied, but is not cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. This form paragraph should only be used ONCE in a given Office action.
3. This form paragraph must precede form paragraphs 7.20.01 - 7.22 when this form paragraph is used to cite the statute in first actions and final rejections.
¶ 7.20.01 For Applications filed Prior to November 29, 1999, 103(a) Rejection Using Art Disqualified Under 102 (f) or (g)
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] at the time this invention was made. Accordingly, [2] is disqualified as prior art through 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in this application. However, this applied art additionally qualifies as prior art under another subsection of 35 U.S.C. 102 and accordingly is not disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention "by another," or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131.
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20 in all actions containing rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using art that is disqualified under 103(c) using 102(f) or (g), but which qualifies under another section of 35 U.S.C. 102.
2. In brackets 1 and 2, identify the commonly owned applied art (patent or co-pending application).
3. Use this form paragraph only in applications filed prior to November 29, 1999. For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, use form paragraph 7.20.03.
¶ 7.20.03 For Applications Filed On Or After November 29, 1999, 103(a) Rejection Using Art Disqualified Under 102(e), (f) or (g)
Applicant has provided evidence in this file showing that the invention was owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same entity as [1] at the time this invention was made. Accordingly, [2] is disqualified as prior art through 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) in any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in this application. However, this applied art additionally qualifies as prior art under another subsection of 35 U.S.C. 102 and accordingly is not disqualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applicant may overcome the applied art either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that the invention disclosed therein was derived from the inventor of this application, and is therefore, not the invention "by another," or by antedating the applied art under 37 CFR 1.131.
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph must be included following form paragraph 7.20 in all actions containing rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using art that is disqualified under 103(c) using 102(e), (f) or (g), but which qualifies under another section of 35 U.S.C. 102.
2. In brackets 1 and 2, identify the commonly owned applied art (patent or co-pending application).
3. Use this form paragraph only in applications filed on or after November 29, 1999. For applications filed prior to November 29, 1999, use form paragraph 7.20.01.
¶ 7.20.02 Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Examiner Note
This paragraph must be used in all applications with joint inventors (unless the claims are clearly restricted to only one claimed invention, e.g., only a single claim is presented in the application).**>¶ 7.21 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2].
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by either form paragraph 7.20 or form paragraph 7.103.
2. An explanation of the rejection applying the Graham v. Deere test must follow this form paragraph.
3. If this rejection relies upon art that is disqualified under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) based upon the common ownership of the invention, form paragraph 7.20.01 must follow this form paragraph.
4. If this rejection is a provisional 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon a copending application that would comprise prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented, use paragraph 7.21.01 instead of this paragraph.
¶ 7.21.01 Provisional Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee or at Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over copending Application No. [2] which has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the copending application, it would constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if patented. This provisional rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is based upon a presumption of future patenting of the conflicting application. [4]
This provisional rejection might be overcome either by a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the copending application was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not the invention "by another," or by a showing of a date of invention for the instant application prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the copending application under 37 CFR 1.131. For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2).
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is used to provisionally reject claims not patentably distinct from the disclosure in a copending application having an earlier U.S. filing date and also having either a common assignee or at least one common inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 when the application being examined establishes that it and any reference application were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person, at the time the invention was made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).
2. If the claimed invention is fully disclosed in the copending application, use form paragraph 7.15.01.
3. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
4. In bracket 4, insert explanation of obviousness.
5. If the claimed invention is also claimed in the copending application, a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection should additionally be made using form paragraphs 8.33 and 8.37.
6. If evidence indicates that the copending application is also prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) and the copending application has not been disqualified as prior art in a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection based upon common ownership, a rejection should additionally be made under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) using form paragraph 7.21 (e.g., applicant has named the prior inventor in response to a requirement made using form paragraph 8.28).
<¶ 7.21.02 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Common Assignee or At Least One Common Inventor
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over [2].
The applied reference has a common [3] with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effective U.S. filing date of the reference, it constitutes prior art only under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention "by another"; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the effective U.S. filing date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131; or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor named in the application is the prior inventor under 35 U.S.C. 104, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). For applications filed on or after November 29, 1999, this rejection might also be overcome by showing that the subject matter of the reference and the claimed invention were, at the time the invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(1) and § 706.02(l)(2). [4]
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is used to reject over a patent with an earlier filing date that discloses the claimed invention, and that only qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If the patent qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or (b), then this form paragraph should not be used (form paragraphs 7.07 and either 7.08 or 7.09 should be used instead). The patent must have either a common assignee or at least one common inventor. This form paragraph should not be used in applications filed on or after November 29, 1999 when the application being examined establishes that it and any reference patent were owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment to, the same person, at the time the invention was made. See MPEP § 706.03(l)(3).
2. In bracket 3, insert either --assignee-- or --inventor--.
3. In bracket 4, insert explanation of obviousness.
**>¶ 7.22 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), Further in View Of
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over [2] as applied to claim [3] above, and further in view of [4].
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.21.
2. An explanation of the rejection applying the Graham v. Deere test must follow this form paragraph.
3. If the rejection relies upon prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference's prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the reference's 3 5 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
<¶ 7.23 Graham v. Deere, Test for Obviousness
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner Note
This form paragraph may be used, if appropriate, in response to an argument of the use of Graham v. Deere.**>¶ 7.27 Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103(a)
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102([2]) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over [3].
Examiner Note
1. This form paragraph is NOT intended to be commonly used as a substitute for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. In other words, a single rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103(a) should be made whenever possible using appropriate form paragraphs 7.15 to 7.19, 7.21 and 7.22. Examples of circumstances where this paragraph may be used are as follows:
When the interpretation of the claim(s) is or may be in dispute, i.e., given one interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is appropriate and given another interpretation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) is appropriate. See MPEP §§ 2111- 2116.01 for guidelines on claim interpretation.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §§ 2112- 2112.02.
When the reference teaches a small genus which places a claimed species in the possession of the public as in In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 197 USPQ 5 (CCPA 1978), and the species would have been obvious even if the genus were not sufficiently small to justify a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. See MPEP §§ 2131.02 and 2144.08 for more information on anticipation and obviousness of species by a disclosure of a genus.
When the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
When the reference teaches all claim limitations except a means plus function limitation and the examiner is not certain whether the element disclosed in the reference is an equivalent to the claimed element and therefore anticipatory, or whether the prior art element is an obvious variant of the claimed element. See MPEP §§ 2183- 2184.
When the ranges disclosed in the reference and claimed by applicant overlap in scope but the reference does not contain a specific example within the claimed range. See the concurring opinion in Ex parte Lee, 31 USPQ2d 1105 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). See MPEP § 2131.03.
2. If the interpretation of the claim(s) renders the claim(s) indefinite, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, may be appropriate.
3. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate paragraph letter(s) in parenthesis.
4. A full explanation should follow this form paragraph.
5. If the rejection relies upon prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), use 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as amended by the American Inventors Protection Act to determine the reference's prior art date, unless the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly, or indirectly, from an international application which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. In other words, use pre-AIPA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) only if the reference is a U.S. patent issued directly or indirectly from either a national stage of an international application (application under 35 U.S.C. 371) which has an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000 or a continuing application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) to an international application having an international filing date prior to November 29, 2000. See the Examiner Notes for form paragraphs 7.12 and 7.12.01 to assist in the determination of the reference's 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date.
6. This form paragraph must be preceded by 7.07, one or more of form paragraphs 7.08 to 7.14 as appropriate, and form paragraph 7.20 or form paragraph 7.103.
<
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents