Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast

Patent Bar Review

Author

Lisa Parmley, USPTO Patent Practitioner #51006

Category

Education

Latest episode

Jun 30, 2026

Where to listen?

Podcasts in the app Replaio Radio Coming soon

Podcasts are coming to the app soon. Install now and be the first to see a whole new take on podcasts

Get it on Google Play Install for free Android 5M+ downloads · 4.8 rating iOS soon

Episodes

MPEP Q & A 204: Definition of a National Application 18.08.2020

Question: What is the definition of a national application as described in chapter 200 of the MPEP? Answer: A national application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the […] The post MPEP Q & A 204: Definition of a National Ap...

MPEP Q & A 203: Rejections of Dependent Claims Not Specifying a Further Limitation 04.08.2020

Question: Should a dependent claim that does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed be rejected under 35 USC 112(d)? Answer: Yes, a dependent claim that does not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). When two claims in an application comply with […] The post MPEP Q & A 203: Rejections of Dependent Cl...

MPEP Q & A 202: Components of Examiner’s Answer in an Appeal 21.07.2020

Question: What should an examiner’s answer in an appeal include? Answer: An examiner’s answer should include, under appropriate headings, in the order indicated, the following items: (1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal. A statement that every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as […] The post MPEP Q & A 202: Components of Exa...

MPEP Q & A 201: Drawings Essential Elements of Design Patent Applications 07.07.2020

Question: Is a drawing an essential element of a design patent application? Answer: Every design patent application must include either a drawing or a photograph of the claimed design. As the drawing or photograph constitutes the entire visual disclosure of the claim, it is of utmost importance that the drawing or photograph be clear and […] The post MPEP Q & A 201: Drawings Essential E...

MPEP Q & A 200: When Drawings Are Not Considered Necessary Under 35 USC 113 23.06.2020

Question: When is a drawing usually not considered necessary for the understanding of an invention under 35 USC 113 (first sentence)? Answer: It has been USPTO practice to treat an application that contains at least one process or method claim as an application for which a drawing is not necessary for an understanding of the […] The post MPEP Q & A 200: When Drawings Are Not Considered...

MPEP Q & A 199: The Difference Between Applicant Information, Correspondence Information, and Application Information 09.06.2020

Question: What is the difference between applicant information, correspondence information, and application information? Answer: Applicant information includes the name, residence, mailing address, and citizenship of each applicant ( when dealing with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(b)). The name of each applicant must include the family name, and at least one given name without abbreviation together with [&#...

MPEP Q & A 198: Items Necessary to Accord the International Filing Date the Date of Receipt of the International Application 26.05.2020

Question: What does the Office need at the time of receipt in order to accord the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application? Answer: The receiving Office shall accord as the international filing date the date of receipt of the international application, provided that the Office has found that, at the […] The post MPEP Q & A 198: Items Necessary to Ac...

MPEP Q & A 197: What Must a Petition for an Unintentionally Delayed Claim be Filed With? 12.05.2020

Question: What must a petition for an unintentionally delayed claim be filed with? Answer: A petition for an unintentionally delayed claim must be accompanied by: (A) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted); (B) a petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m); and (C) a […] The post MPEP Q & A 197: What Must a Petition for an Un...

MPEP Q & A 196: Submission of Petition to Withdraw Application from Issue Under 37 CFR 1.313(c) 28.04.2020

Question: How can petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) be sent to the USPTO? Answer: Petitions to withdraw an application from issue under 37 CFR 1.313(c) may be: (A) mailed to “Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents”; (B) transmitted by facsimile; (C) hand-carried to the Office of Petitions; or (D) […] The post MPEP Q & A 196: Submission of Petiti...

MPEP Q & A 195: Necessary Items for a Petition for Retroactive License 14.04.2020

Question: What should a petition for retroactive license include? Answer: A petition for retroactive license shall include: (1) A listing of each of the foreign countries in which the unlicensed patent application material was filed, (2) The dates on which the material was filed in each country, (3) A verified statement (oath or declaration) containing: […] The post MPEP Q & A 195: Nece...

MPEP Q & A 194: Stop the Publication of an Application 31.03.2020

Question: Can a petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) stop publication of an application? Answer: A petition under 37 CFR 1.138(c) will not stop publication of the application unless it is recognized and acted on by the Pre-Grant Publication Division in sufficient time to avoid publication. The petition will be granted when it is recognized in […] The post MPEP Q & A 194: Stop the Publication...

MPEP Q & A 193: Petition to Make Special and Energy Resources 17.03.2020

Question: Does the petition to make special apply to patent applications for inventions dealing with energy resources? Answer: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will, on petition, accord “special” status to all patent applications for inventions which materially contribute to: (A) the discovery or development of energy resources, or (B) the more efficient utilization and […] The post MPEP...

MPEP Q & A 192: Overcome Provisional Obviousness Rejection 03.03.2020

Question: How can a provisional obviousness rejection be overcome? Answer: A provisional obviousness rejection can be overcome by: Arguing patentability over the earlier filed application; Combining the subject matter of the copending applications into a single application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the prior applications and abandoning the copending applications Filing an affidavit [...

MPEP Q & A 191: Final Rule in the Changes to the Claim Construction Standard 18.02.2020

Question: What does the final rule in the “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” state? Answer: In this final rule, the Office revises the rules to provide that a patent claim, or a claim proposed in a motion to amend, shall be […] The post MPEP Q & A 191: Final Rule in the Changes to...

MPEP Q & A 190: AIA Proceeding Expenses Under Phillips 04.02.2020

Question: Have parties to AIA proceedings under Phillips required expanded page limits or otherwise incurred more expenses in their AIA trials than parties in AIA proceedings under BRI? Answer: PTAB has not found that parties to these AIA proceedings under Phillips require expanded page limits or otherwise incur more expense in their AIA trials than […] The post MPEP Q & A 190: AIA Proc...

MPEP Q & A 189: Issuance of NIRC Action in Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding 21.01.2020

Question: Name one instance when issuance of a NIRC action would be proper in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. Answer: The following are the only instances when issuance of a NIRC action would be proper in an inter partes reexamination proceeding: There is no timely response by the patent owner to an Office action requiring […] The post MPEP Q & A 189: Issuance of NIRC Action i...

MPEP Q & A 188: What Should Applicant Initiated Interview Request Form Identify? 07.01.2020

Question: What should the Applicant Initiated Interview Request form identify? Answer: The Applicant Initiated Interview Request form should identify: the participants of the interview the proposed date of the interview whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. Chapter Details: The […] The pos...

MPEP Q & A 187: Two Final Rules Dealing with Claim Construction Standard 10.12.2019

Question: What are the two final rules dealing with the claim construction standard as implemented in the supplement entitled “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board”? Answer: In the first final rule, the Office changed the existing rules to, among other things: Increase […] The post MPEP Q...

MPEP Q & A 186: Name Types of Patents that May Not Use 37 C.F.R. 1.114 26.11.2019

Question: Name two types of patents that may not use the provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.114. Answer: The provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.114 do not apply to the following types of patents: design patent applications provisional applications applications filed before June 8, 1995 international applications filed before June 8, 1995 an international design application reexamination […] The post MPEP Q &#...

MPEP Q & A 185: What Must an Application Filed Under 37 CFR 1.53(d) be Filed Before the Earliest Of? 12.11.2019

Question: What must an application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) be filed before the earliest of? Answer: An application filed under 37 CFR 1.53(d) must be filed before the earliest of: (A) payment of the issue fee on the prior application, unless a petition is granted in the prior application; (B) abandonment of the prior […] The post MPEP Q & A 185: What Must an Application Filed Under 3...

MPEP Q & A 184: What Should a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection Identify Under Step 2A? 29.10.2019

Question: A subject matter eligibility rejection under Step 2 should provide an explanation for each part of the Step 2 analysis; Step 2A and Step 2B. What specifically should a rejection identify under Step 2A? Answer: For Step 2A, the rejection should identify the judicial exception by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in […] The post MPEP Q & A 184: What Sho...

MPEP Q & A 183: When Changes to the Claim Construction Standard Apply 15.10.2019

Question: When will the changes to the claim construction standard as outlined in “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” apply? Answer: As shown in the supplement … The changes to the claim construction standard will apply to proceedings where a petition is filed […] The post MPEP Q...

MPEP Q & A 182: Characteristics of Ex Parte Reexamination 01.10.2019

Question: List one of the basic characteristics of ex parte reexamination. Answer: The basic characteristics of ex parte reexamination are as follows: Anyone can request reexamination at any time during the period of enforceability of the patent; In ex parte reexaminations, prior art considered during reexamination is limited to prior art patents or printed publications […] The post MPEP Q &...

MPEP Q & A 181: Summary of Claim Construction Standard 17.09.2019

Question: What is the executive summary of the final rule when dealing with the claim construction standard that took effect on November 13, 2018? Answer: This final rule revises the rules for IPR, PGR, and CBM proceedings that implemented provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (‘‘AIA’’) providing for trials before the Office, by replacing […] The post MPEP Q & A 181: Summary...

MPEP Q & A 180: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) 03.09.2019

Question: What does AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) discuss? Answer: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) sets forth exceptions to prior art established in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a). Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 08.2017. Depending […] The post MPEP Q & A 180: AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) ap...

Listen to the Patent Bar MPEP Q & A Podcast podcast in Replaio

Radio and podcasts in one app - free, with no sign-up. Install today and do not miss the launch

Get it on Google Play

Replaio is not a podcast publisher; show names, artwork and audio belong to their authors and are distributed through public RSS feeds.