Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog

USPTO Tips to Streamline Patent Prosecution.

Posted in Practice Commentary by Jake Ward on July 21, 2010

As many of our readers are likely aware, Director David Kappos has been publishing to a blog at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the past several months.  The blog is entitled “Director’s Forum” and is located here.

We have enjoyed reading the Director’s Forum, which has proved to be a good source of information about happenings at the USPTO that will affect applicants.  A particularly good post was made a few weeks ago, and provided tips to streamline the patent prosecution process. 

The tips were based on dozens of comments made at an earlier post where the Director called for suggestions.  Many of the tips echo what we have previously stated here at AT!. 

The full listing is reproduced below for the convenience of our readers.

1) CONDUCT INTERVIEWS:  Set up interviews when possible. Interviews can help applicants and examiners quickly identify points of agreement as well as points of disagreement.  An interview will help advance prosecution and provide an opportunity to facilitate a possible early allowance.

2) KEEP CLAIMS MANAGEABLE:  Avoid filing excessive numbers of claims. Filing a manageable number of claims will enable the examiner to enhance prosecution by directing examination efforts at the heart of applicants’ invention.

3) PROVIDE GOOD TRANSLATIONS:  Do a careful job of translating foreign-language applications into English before filing an application in the United States.  Poorly translated applications often result in undesirable lengthy prosecution resulting from lack of clarity arising from indefinite claim language or unclear wording in the specification.

4) CLEARLY IDENTIFY NEW LIMITATIONS:  When adding new limitations to claims during prosecution, include a brief section in the remarks citing the location in the specification or drawings that provides support. This will eliminate unwarranted new matter rejections under Section 112 and assist the examiner in better understanding the meaning of the claims. 

5) FILE THOROUGH RESPONSES:  Take care to ensure that your response addresses the specific issues set forth in the examiner’s office action. Responses or amendments that fail to address the issues in the office action unduly extend prosecution.

6) ADVANCE AMENDMENTS/ARGUMENTS EARLY:  File arguments and amendments at the earliest stage of prosecution, and prior to a final rejection if at all possible.  Amendments submitted after final are more difficult to deal with procedurally, are not automatically entered, and extend prosecution.

7) COORDINATE US/FOREIGN APPLICATIONS:  Draft or amend your U.S. application in view of the prosecution in a corresponding foreign or international application.  Success of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) shows that applications drafted or amended in response to search reports and patentability opinions in corresponding foreign or international applications have a much higher allowance rate and shorter prosecution. 

8)  DRAFT CLAIMS TOWARD THE INVENTION: Know what you want to protect before you file the application and draft the claims toward the invention.  If the claim set is not initially drafted to capture the protection needed or desired by the applicant, the examiner will have difficulty doing a comprehensive search on first action.  Furthermore, the examiner will have difficulty anticipating what might be claimed in the future, if the initial claim set is misdirected or overly broad. All of this extends prosecution at everyone’s expense.   

9)  KEEP INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS MATERIAL:  Submit a focused Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).  Include in an IDS only those references material to patentability.  The citation of references that are not material to patentability does not promote a focused examination.  Also, be careful to avoid the repeated citation of the same reference.

10)  DRAFT CLAIM SET FROM BROAD TO NARROW:  Draft your claim set beginning with the broadest scope to which you feel you are entitled and concluding with the narrowest scope you feel merits protection.  A claim set that is graduated in scope from broad to narrow assists the examiner in performing a complete and focused search on first action and can help the examiner anticipate future amendments.  A claim set that is merely broad does not assist the examiner in performing a focused search and often leaves the examiner guessing as to what might be claimed after first action.  This can lead to piecemeal prosecution and the citation of new art after amendment.

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. patent litigation said, on July 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    This is the latest in Kappos’s series of smart PR moves. There is little question that his decisions have gone a long way toward improving the public image of the USPTO. Whether or not they will significantly, and positively, affect the practice of U.S. patent law remains to be seen. Nonetheless, I appreciate the new USPTO Director’s assiduous efforts.


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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 667 other followers

%d bloggers like this: