Artwork

Content provided by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
icon Daily Deals

MPEP Q & A 316: Is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application?

3:52
 
Share
 

Manage episode 453735712 series 1537034
Content provided by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.

Question: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? Answer: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, it may become necessary to […]

The post MPEP Q & A 316: Is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

  continue reading

310 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 453735712 series 1537034
Content provided by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006, Lisa Parmley, and USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006 or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.

Question: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? Answer: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, it may become necessary to […]

The post MPEP Q & A 316: Is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

  continue reading

310 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Question: What non-exhaustive factors may be considered to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period? Answer: The following non-exhaustive factors may be considered to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period: (1) Petitioner engaged in significant, constructive efforts with the examiner to resolve the issue outside of the petitions […] The post MPEP Q & A 329: Non-exhaustive factors to determine whether to accept a petition after the 2-month period. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What are the reasons for insisting upon a restriction? Answer: Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each inventionas claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the […] The post MPEP Q & A 328: Reasons for insisting upon a restriction? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What information should also be submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid? Answer: The following information should also be submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid: (A) the fee year (i.e., 3 1/2, 7 1/2, or 11 1/2 year fee); (B) the […] The post MPEP Q & A 327: Information submitted for each patent on which a maintenance fee or surcharge is paid. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What applications count for the filing limits for the purposes of establishing micro entity status under the “gross income” basis? Answer: For purposes of establishing micro entity status under the “gross income” basis, the application filing limit includes: (i) previously filed U.S. nonprovisional applications (e.g., utility, design, plant, continuation, and divisional applications), (ii) previously filed […] The post MPEP Q & A 326: Applications that count for “gross income” basis micro entity status. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: List two pieces of information that should be placed on the first page of a protest. Answer: Each protest should be clearly identified as a “PROTEST UNDER 37 CFR 1.291.” It is also important that any protest against a pending application specifically identify the application to which the protest is directed with the identification being […] The post MPEP Q & A 325: List the pieces of information that should be placed on the first page of a protest. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: Name at least two items that must be submitted when adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date. Answer: Adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date involves the submission of: (1) a “Sequence Listing” either as a PDF image file, on physical sheets of paper, or as an ASCII plain text […] The post MPEP Q & A 324: Name items that must be submitted when adding a “Sequence Listing” after the application filing date. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: Where a restriction (including an election of species) requirement was made in an application and applicant permitted the elected invention to issue as a patent without filing a divisional application on the non-elected invention(s) or on non-claimed subject matter distinct from the elected invention, can the non-elected invention(s) and non-claimed, distinct subject matter be […] The post MPEP Q & A 323: Can distinct subject matter be recovered by filing a reissue application in specific cases? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What type of Demand will prevent an international application designating the U.S. to enter the national stage via the U.S. Designated Office? Answer: An international application designating the U.S. will enter the national stage via the U.S. Designated Office unless a Demand electing the U.S. is filed under PCT Article 31 whereupon entry will be via […] The post MPEP Q & A 322: What type of Demand will prevent an international application designating the U.S. to enter? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What are the factual inquiries related to obviousness that the Court enunciates? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the […] The post MPEP Q & A 321: What are the factual inquiries related to obviousness? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What are the three types of designs the language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include? Answer: The language “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture” has been interpreted by the case law to include at least three kinds of designs: […] The post MPEP Q & A 320: What are the three types of designs interpreted by case law to include? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: What three items must any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile include? Answer: Any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile must include: (A) an identified application or patent number; (B) one cover sheet to record a single transaction; and (C) payment of the recordation fee by a credit card, is […] The post MPEP Q & A 319: What must any assignment-related document for patent matters submitted by facsimile include? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: Name two requirements of an oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63? Answer: An oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63 must: (1) Identify the inventor or joint inventor executing the oath or declaration by his or her legal name; (2) Identify the application to which it is directed; (3) Include a […] The post MPEP Q & A 318: Requirements of an oath or declaration under section 37 CFR 1.63. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: How can you determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied in a reissue application? Answer: Examiners should review the reissue application to determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied, by considering if: (A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original […] The post MPEP Q & A 317: How can you determine whether the original patent requirement is satisfied in a reissue application? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? Answer: If an application by joint inventors includes more than one independent and distinct invention, and restriction is required, it may become necessary to […] The post MPEP Q & A 316: Is it ever necessary to change the inventorship named in the application? appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Question: List two examples of situations that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” context of use and, therefore, do not define “substantial utilities.” Answer: The following are examples of situations that require or constitute carrying out further research to identify or reasonably confirm a “real world” […] The post MPEP Q & A 315: List examples of situations that confirm a “real world” context of use. appeared first on Patent Education Series .…
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals
icon Daily Deals

Quick Reference Guide

Copyright 2025 | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | | Copyright
Listen to this show while you explore
Play