Examiners sometimes rely on unfinished products to reject device claims—but as a recent PTAB decision shows, “almost” isn’t enough. We break down the case and share practical tips for responding to these nuanced rejections.

It is not uncommon for examiners to dismiss dimensional claim limitations—especially relative dimensions—as mere design choices that don’t patentably distinguish over the prior art. Examiners often cite MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(a), which explains that a change in proportions of a prior art device is obvious unless there is some new function achieved. It’s an easy move…

Mr. IP Law is pleased to announce it has migrated to WordPress with a new look. Look out for new posts to again keep you up to date on all of the latest patent prosecution trends.

Non-limiting statements do not necessarily mean that there is no limit at all in terms of the scope of disclosure.

See how examiners try to combat “consisting of” language in obviousness rejections.

Read about a recent PTAB decision on the Hard Rock Cafe’s Golden Solo Experience.

In patent law, do you need written description of transition phrases, or can you switch between them at will?

Facing §101 rejections at the USPTO and finding the Office agreeing that there’s an improvement—but only to the abstract idea itself? Read the latest post.

What do AI and snoring have in common? A recent PTAB case involving Sleep Number shows how the USPTO is interpreting machine learning terms like “classifier” and “vote”.

When an applicant traverses Official Notice, the burden shifts to the examiner to provide evidence — not the other way around. A recent PTAB decision confirms that even a simple, specific denial is enough to trigger that obligation.