Claim 3. A gadget as in any of the following claims, in which ---
Claim 5. A gadget as in either claim 6 or claim 8, in which ---
Claim 9. A gadget as in claim 1 or 4 made by the process of claims 5, 6, 7, or 8, in which ---
Claim 8. A gadget as in claim 5 (claim 5 is a multiple dependent claim) or claim 7, in which ---
35 U.S.C. 112 indicates that the limitations or elements of each claim incorporated by reference into a multiple dependent claim must be considered separately. Thus, a multiple dependent claim, as such, does not contain all the limitations of all the alternative claims to which it refers, but rather contains in any one embodiment only those limitations of the particular claim referred to for the embodiment under consideration. Hence, a multiple dependent claim must be considered in the same manner as a plurality of single dependent claims.
For restriction purposes, each embodiment of a multiple dependent claim is considered in the same manner as a single dependent claim. Therefore, restriction may be required between the embodiments of a multiple dependent claim. Also, some embodiments of a multiple dependent claim may be held withdrawn while other embodiments are considered on their merits.
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) is responsible for verifying whether multiple dependent claims filed with the application are in proper alternative form, that they depend only upon prior independent or single dependent claims and also for calculating the amount of the filing fee. Form PTO/SB/07 has been designed to be used in conjunction with the current fee calculation form PTO/SB/06.
The Technology Center (TC) technical support staff is responsible for verifying compliance with the statute and rules of multiple dependent claims added by amendment and for calculating the amount of any additional fees required. This calculation should be performed on form PTO/SB/07.
There is no need for a TC technical support staff to check the accuracy of the initial filing fee since this has already been verified by the Office of Patent Application Processing.
If a multiple dependent claim (or claims) is added in an amendment without the proper fee, either by adding references to prior claims or by adding a new multiple dependent claim, the amendment should not be entered until the fee has been received. In view of the requirements for multiple dependent claims, no amendment containing new claims or changing the dependency of claims should be entered before checking whether the paid fees cover the costs of the amended claims. The applicant, or the applicant's attorney or agent, should be contacted to pay the additional fee. Where a letter is written in an insufficient fee situation, a copy of the multiple dependent claim fee calculation, form PTO/SB/07 should be included for applicant’s information.
Where the TC technical support staff notes that the reference to the prior claims is improper in an added or amended multiple dependent claim, a notation should be made in the left margin next to the claim itself and the number 1, which is inserted in the "Dep. Claim" column of that amendment on form PTO/SB/07 should be circled in order to call this matter to the examiner’s attention.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c), a claim in dependent form must refer only to a claim or claims previously set forth. The following procedures are to be followed by examiners when faced with claims which refer to numerically succeeding claims:
If any series of dependent claims contains a claim with an improper reference to a numerically following claim which cannot be understood, the claim referring to a following claim should normally be objected to and not treated on the merits.
However, in situations where a claim refers to a numerically following claim and the dependency is clear, both as presented and as it will be renumbered at issue, all claims should be examined on the merits and no objection as to form need be made. In such cases, an examiner’s amendment should be prepared if the order of the claims is changed. (See Example B, below.)
Any unusual problems should be brought to the supervisor’s attention.
Example A
(Claims 4 and 6 should be objected to as not being understood and should not be treated on the merits.)
1. Independent
2. Dependent on claim 5
3. Dependent on claim 2
4. ". . . as in any preceding claim"
5. Independent
6. Dependent on claim 4
Example B
Note: Parenthetical numerals represent the claim numbering for issue should all claims be allowed.
(All claims should be examined.)
1. (1) Independent
2. (5) Dependent on claim 5 (4)
3. (2) Dependent on claim 1 (1)
4. (3) Dependent on claim 3 (2)
5. (4) Dependent on either claim 1 (1) or claim 3 (2)
The following practice is followed by patent examiners when making reference to a dependent claim either singular or multiple:
· (A) When identifying a singular dependent claim which does not include a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, reference should be made only to the number of the dependent claim.
· (B) When identifying the embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim, or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, each embodiment should be identified by using the number of the claims involved, starting with the highest, to the extent necessary to specifically identify each embodiment.
· (C) When all embodiments included within a multiple dependent claim or a singular dependent claim which includes a reference to a multiple dependent claim, either directly or indirectly, are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirement, reference may be made only to the number of the dependent claim.
The following table illustrates the current practice where each embodiment of each claim must be treated on an individual basis:
|
Claim No. |
Claim dependency |
Identification All claims |
Approved practice |
|
1 |
Independent |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
Depends from 1 |
2/1 |
2 |
|
3 |
Depends from 2 |
3/2/1 |
3 |
|
4 |
Depends from 2 or 3 |
4/2/1 4/3/2/1 |
4/2 4/3 |
|
5 |
Depends from 3 |
5/3/2/1 |
5 |
|
6 |
Depends from 2, 3, or 5 |
6/2/1 6/3/2/1 6/5/3/2/1 |
6/2 6/3 6/5 |
|
7 |
Depends from 6 |
7/6/2/1 7/6/3/2/1 7/6/5/3/2/1 |
7/6/2 7/6/3 7/6/5 |
When all embodiments in a multiple dependent claim situation (claims 4, 6, and 7 above) are subject to a common rejection, objection, or requirements, reference may be made to the number of the individual dependent claim only. For example, if 4/2 and 4/3 were subject to a common ground of rejection, reference should be made only to claim 4 in the statement of that rejection.
The provisions of 35 U.S.C. 132 require that each Office action make it explicitly clear what rejection, objection and/or requirement is applied to each claim embodiment.
To assist in the computation of the fees for multiple dependent claims, a separate "Multiple Dependent Claim Fee Calculation Sheet," form PTO/SB/07 has been designed for use with the current "Patent Application Fee Determination Record," form PTO/SB/06. Form PTO/SB/07 will be placed in the application file by the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) where multiple dependent claims are in the application as filed or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims. If multiple dependent claims are not included upon filing or submitted in response to an OPAP notice requiring claims, but are later added by amendment, the TC technical support staff will place the form in the application file. If there are multiple dependent claims in the application, the total number of independent and dependent claims for fee purposes will be calculated on form PTO/SB/07 and the total number of claims and number of independent claims is then placed on form PTO/SB/06 for final fee calculation purposes.
35 U.S.C. 41(a), provides that claims in proper multiple dependent form may not be considered as single dependent claims for the purpose of calculating fees. Thus, a multiple dependent claim is considered to be that number of dependent claims to which it refers. Any proper claim depending directly or indirectly from a multiple dependent claim is also considered as the number of dependent claims as referred to in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends.
If none of the multiple dependent claims is proper, the multiple dependent claim fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.16(j) will not be required. However, the multiple dependent claim fee is required if at least one multiple dependent claim is proper.
If any multiple dependent claim is improper, OPAP may indicate that fact by placing an encircled numeral "1" in the "Dep. Claims" column of form PTO/SB/07. The fee for any improper multiple dependent claim, whether it is defective for either not being in the alternative form or for being directly or indirectly dependent on a prior multiple dependent claim, will only be one, since only an objection to the form of such a claim will normally be made. This procedure also greatly simplifies the calculation of fees. Any claim depending from an improper multiple dependent claim will also be considered to be improper and be counted as one dependent claim.
Claim 1 — This is an independent claim; therefore, a numeral "1" is placed opposite claim number 1 in the "Ind." column.
Claim 2 — Since this is a claim dependent on a single independent claim, a numeral "1" is placed opposite claim number 2 of the "Dep." column.
Claim 3 — Claim 3 is also a single dependent claim, so a numeral "1" is placed in the "Dep." column.
Claim 4 — Claim 4 is a proper multiple dependent claim. It refers directly to two claims in the alternative, namely, claim 2 or 3. Therefore, a numeral "2" to indicate direct reference to two claims is placed in the "Dep." column opposite claim number 4.
Claim 5 — This claim is a singularly dependent claim depending from a multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes, such a claim is counted as being that number of claims to which direct reference is made in the multiple dependent claim from which it depends. In this case, the multiple dependent claim number 4 it depends from counts as 2 claims; therefore, claim 5 also counts as 2 claims. Accordingly, a numeral "2" is placed opposite claim number 5 in the "Dep." column.
Claim 6 — Claim 6 depends indirectly from a multiple dependent claim 4. Since claim 4 counts as 2 claims, claim 6 also counts as 2 dependent claims. Consequently, a numeral "2" is placed in the "Dep." column after claim 6.
Claim 7 — This claim is a multiple dependent claim since it refers to claims 4, 5, or 6. However, as can be seen by looking at the "2" in the "Dep." column opposite claim 4, claim 7 depends from a multiple dependent claim. This practice is improper under 35 U.S.C.112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Following the procedure for calculating fees for improper multiple dependent claims, a numeral "1" is placed in the "Dep." column with a circle drawn around it to alert the examiner that the claim is improper.
Claim 8 — Claim 8 is improper since it depends from an improper claim. If the base claim is in error, this error cannot be corrected by adding additional claims depending therefrom. Therefore, a numeral "1" with a circle around it is placed in the "Dep." column.
Claim 9 — Here again we have an independent claim which is always indicated with a numeral "1" in the "Ind." column opposite the claim number.
Claim 10 — This claim refers to two independent claims in the alternative. A numeral "2" is, therefore, placed in the "Dep." column opposite claim 10.
Claim 11 — Claim 11 is a dependent claim which refers to two claims in the conjunctive ("1" and "9") rather than in the alternative ("1" or "9"). This form is improper under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 37 CFR 1.75(c). Accordingly, since claim 11 is improper, an encircled number "1" is placed in the "Dep." column opposite Claim 11.
After the number of "Ind." and "Dep." claims are noted on form PTO/SB/07, each column is added. In this example, there are 2 independent claims and 13 dependent claims or a total of 15 claims. The number of independent and total claims can then be placed on form PTO/SB/06 and the fee calculated.
The initial determination, for fee purposes, as to whether a claim is dependent must be made by persons other than examiners; it is necessary, at that time, to accept as dependent virtually every claim which refers to another claim, without determining whether there is actually a true dependent relationship. The initial acceptance of a claim as a dependent claim does not, however, preclude a subsequent holding by the examiner that a claim is not a proper dependent claim.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain:
· (i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and
· (ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.
The fact that a dependent claim, which is otherwise proper might relate to a separate invention that would require a separate search or be separately classified from the claim on which it depends would not render it an improper dependent claim.
The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it further specifies limitations relating to the method of making the product of claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. On the other hand, if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim, and thus, does not include the limitations of the base claim.
Examiners are reminded that a dependent claim is directed to a combination including everything recited in the base claim and what is recited in the dependent claim. It is this combination that must be compared with the prior art, exactly as if it were presented as one independent claim.
When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(d) )). Although the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are related to matters of form, non-compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. For example, a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.
Claims which are in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim, or for not including every limitation of the claim from which it depends, should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph by using form paragraphs 7.36 and 7.36.01.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
1. The statute is no longer being recited in all Office actions. It is only required in first actions on the merits and final rejections. Where the statute is not being cited in an action on the merits, use paragraph 7.103.
2. Form paragraph 7.36 is to be used ONLY ONCE in a given Office action.
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. [2]. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
1. In bracket 2, insert an explanation of what is in the claim and why it does not constitute a further limitation.
2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that although the requirements of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, are related to matters of form, non-compliance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph ). Therefore, if a dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, the dependent claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.36.
A singular dependent claim 2 could read as follows:
2. The product of claim 1 in which . . . .
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated therefrom by any claim which does not also depend from said "dependent claim." It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer back to any preceding independent claim. These are the only restrictions with respect to the sequence of claims and, in general, applicant’s sequence should not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(j). Applicant may be so advised by using form paragraph 6.18.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant’s sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
During prosecution, the order of claims may change and be in conflict with the requirement that dependent claims refer to a preceding claim. Accordingly, the numbering of dependent claims and the numbers of preceding claims referred to in dependent claims should be carefully checked when claims are renumbered upon allowance.
If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete. If the base claim is rejected, the dependent claim should be objected to rather than rejected, if it is otherwise allowable.
Form paragraph 7.43 can be used to state the objection.
Claim [1] objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.
The specification should be objected to if it does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claims by using form paragraph 7.44.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: [1]
Newly filed applications obviously failing to disclose an invention with the clarity required are discussed in MPEP § 702.01.
The contents of an application, to be complete, must include a specification containing a written description of the invention using such description and details as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention as of its filing date. See 35 U.S.C. 112. At least one specific operative embodiment or example of the invention must be set forth. The example(s) and description should be of sufficient scope as to justify the scope of the claims.
For the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention as of the date of invention. See MPEP § 2163 et seq. for further guidance with respect to the evaluation of a patent application for compliance with the written description requirement.
An applicant’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The fact that experimentation is complex, however, will not make it undue if a person of skill in the art typically engages in such complex experimentation. See MPEP § 2164 et seq. for detailed guidance with regard to the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.
See also MPEP § 2161.01 regarding computer programming and 35 U.S.C. 112; and MPEP § 2181 and § 2185 regarding 35 U.S.C. 112 in the context of functional claims.
The specification should include a statement which identifies a specific and substantial credible utility for the claimed invention. This usually presents no problem in mechanical or electrical cases. Questions regarding compliance with the utility requirement arise more often in biotechnological or chemical cases.
For "Guidelines For Examination Of Applications For Compliance With The Utility Requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101," see MPEP § 2107.
For "General Principles Governing Utility Rejections," see MPEP § 2107.01.
For a discussion of the utility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in drug cases, see MPEP § 2107.03 and § 2164.06(a).
For "Procedural Considerations Related to Rejections for Lack of Utility," see MPEP § 2107.02.
For "Special Considerations for Asserted Therapeutic or Pharmacological Utilities," see MPEP § 2107.03.
[Editor Note: Paragraph (a) below is only applicable to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) on or after December 18, 2013.]
· (a) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, a reference made in the English language in an application data sheet in accordance with § 1.76 upon the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) to a previously filed application, indicating that the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) are replaced by the reference to the previously filed application, and specifying the previously filed application by application number, filing date, and the intellectual property authority or country in which the previously filed application was filed, shall constitute the specification and any drawings of the application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for purposes of a filing date under § 1.53(b).
· (1) If the applicant has provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a) ), the applicant will be notified and given a period of time within which to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment. Such a notice may be combined with a notice under § 1.53(f).
· (2) If the applicant has not provided a correspondence address (§ 1.33(a) ), the applicant has three months from the filing date of the application to file a copy of the specification and drawings from the previously filed application, an English language translation of the previously filed application, and the fee required by § 1.17(i) if it is in a language other than English, and pay the surcharge required by § 1.16(f), to avoid abandonment.
· (3) An application abandoned under paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section shall be treated as having never been filed, unless:
· (i) The application is revived under § 1.137; and
· (ii) A copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application are filed in the Office.
· (4) A certified copy of the previously filed application must be filed in the Office, unless the previously filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 363, or the previously filed application is a foreign priority application and the conditions set forth in § 1.55(i) are satisfied with respect to such foreign priority application. The certified copy of the previously filed application, if required by this paragraph, must be filed within the later of four months from the filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the previously filed application, or be accompanied by a petition including a showing of good and sufficient cause for the delay and the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(g).
· (b) Subject to the conditions and requirements of this paragraph, if all or a portion of the specification or drawing(s) is inadvertently omitted from an application, but the application contains a claim under § 1.55 for priority of a prior-filed foreign application, or a claim under § 1.78 for the benefit of a prior-filed provisional, nonprovisional, international application, or international design application, that was present on the filing date of the application, and the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) is completely contained in the prior-filed application, the claim under § 1.55 or 1.78 shall also be considered an incorporation by reference of the prior-filed application as to the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s).
· (1) The application must be amended to include the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawing(s) within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The applicant is also required to:
· (i) Supply a copy of the prior-filed application, except where the prior-filed application is an application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111;
· (ii) Supply an English language translation of any prior-filed application that is in a language other than English; and
· (iii) Identify where the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings can be found in the prior-filed application.
· (2) Any amendment to an international application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States, and shall have no effect on the international filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international application designating the United States will be acted upon by the Office prior to the entry and commencement of the national stage (§ 1.491 ) or the filing of an application under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) which claims benefit of the international application. Any omitted portion of the international application which applicant desires to be effective as to all designated States, subject to PCT Rule 20.8(b), must be submitted in accordance with PCT Rule 20.
· (3) If an application is not otherwise entitled to a filing date under § 1.53(b), the amendment must be by way of a petition pursuant to § 1.53(e) accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(f).
· (4) Any amendment to an international design application pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be effective only as to the United States and shall have no effect on the filing date of the application. In addition, no request under this section to add the inadvertently omitted portion of the specification or drawings in an international design application will be acted upon by the Office prior to the international design application becoming a nonprovisional application.
· (c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, an incorporation by reference must be set forth in the specification and must:
· (1) Express a clear intent to incorporate by reference by using the root words "incorporat(e)" and "reference" ( e.g. , "incorporate by reference"); and
· (2) Clearly identify the referenced patent, application, or publication.
· (d) "Essential material" may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference. "Essential material" is material that is necessary to:
· (1) Provide a written description of the claimed invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a);
· (2) Describe the claimed invention in terms that particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b); or
· (3) Describe the structure, material, or acts that correspond to a claimed means or step for performing a specified function as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
· (e) Other material ("Nonessential material") may be incorporated by reference to U.S. patents, U.S. patent application publications, foreign patents, foreign published applications, prior and concurrently filed commonly owned U.S. applications, or non-patent publications. An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted.
· (f) The examiner may require the applicant to supply a copy of the material incorporated by reference. If the Office requires the applicant to supply a copy of material incorporated by reference, the material must be accompanied by a statement that the copy supplied consists of the same material incorporated by reference in the referencing application.
· (g) Any insertion of material incorporated by reference into the specification or drawings of an application must be by way of an amendment to the specification or drawings. Such an amendment must be accompanied by a statement that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter.
· (h) An incorporation of material by reference that does not comply with paragraphs (c), (d), or (e) of this section is not effective to incorporate such material unless corrected within any time period set by the Office, but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by § 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. In addition:
· (1) A correction to comply with paragraph (c)(1) of this section is permitted only if the application as filed clearly conveys an intent to incorporate the material by reference. A mere reference to material does not convey an intent to incorporate the material by reference.
· (2) A correction to comply with paragraph (c)(2) of this section is only permitted for material that was sufficiently described to uniquely identify the document.
· (i) An application transmittal letter limited to the transmittal of a copy of the specification and drawings from a previously filed application submitted under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section may be signed by a juristic applicant or patent owner.
The Director has considerable discretion in determining what may or may not be incorporated by reference in a patent application. General Electric Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968). In 2004, the Office codified in 37 CFR 1.57(b) – (g) existing practice with respect to explicit incorporations by reference with a few changes to reflect the eighteen-month publication of applications. In addition, in 2004, 37 CFR 1.57(a) was added to
