An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.57(e) and MPEP § 608.01.
Mere reference to another application, patent, or publication is not an incorporation of anything therein into the application containing such reference for the purpose of the disclosure required by 35 U.S.C. 112. In re de Seversky, 474 F.2d 671, 177 USPQ 144 (CCPA 1973). 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1) limits a proper incorporation by reference (except as provided in 37 CFR 1.57(b) ) to instances only where the perfecting words "incorporated by reference" or the root of the words "incorporate" (e.g., incorporating, incorporated) and "reference" (e.g., referencing) appear. The requirement for specific root words will bring greater clarity to the record and provide a bright line test as to where something is being referred to is an incorporation by reference. The Office intends to treat references to documents that do not meet this "bright line" test as noncompliant incorporations by reference and may require correction pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57(h). If a reference to a document does not clearly indicate an intended incorporation by reference, examination will proceed as if no incorporation by reference statement has been made and the Office will not expend resources trying to determine if an incorporation by reference was intended. In addition to other requirements for an application, the referencing application must include an identification of the referenced patent, application, or publication. See 37 CFR 1.57(c)(2). Particular attention should be directed to specific portions of the referenced document where the subject matter being incorporated may be found. Guidelines for situations where applicant is permitted to fill in a number for Application No. __________ left blank in the application as filed can be found in In re Fouche, 439 F.2d 1237, 169 USPQ 429 (CCPA 1971) (Abandoned applications less than 20 years old can be incorporated by reference to the same extent as copending applications; both types are open to the public upon the referencing application issuing as a patent.). See 37 CFR 1.14(a)(i), (iv), and (vi), and MPEP § 103.
If an application is filed with a complete disclosure, essential material may be canceled by amendment and may be substituted by reference to a U.S. patent or a U.S. patent application publication. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement signed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material canceled from the application is the same material that has been incorporated by reference and no new matter has been included (see 37 CFR 1.57(g) ). The same procedure is available for nonessential material.
If an application as filed incorporates material by reference, a copy of the incorporated by reference material may be required to be submitted to the Office even if the material is properly incorporated by reference. The examiner may require a copy of the incorporated material to review and to understand what is being incorporated or to put the description of the material in its proper context. Another instance where a copy of the incorporated material may be required is where the material is being inserted by amendment into the body of the application to replace an improper incorporation by reference statement so that the Office can determine that the material being added by amendment in lieu of the incorporation is the same material as was attempted to be incorporated. If the Office requires the applicant to supply a copy of the 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. See 37 CFR 1.57(f).
37 CFR 1.57(g) addresses corrections of incorporation by reference by inserting the material previously incorporated by reference. A noncompliant incorporation by reference statement may be corrected by an amendment. 37 CFR 1.57(g). However, the amendment must not include new matter. Incorporating by reference material that was not incorporated by reference on filing of an application may introduce new matter. An incorporation by reference of essential material to an unpublished U.S. patent application, a foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper under 37 CFR 1.57(d). The improper incorporation by reference is not effective to incorporate the material unless corrected by the applicant (37 CFR 1.57(h) ). Any underlying objection or rejection (e.g., under 35 U.S.C. 112 ) should be made by the examiner until applicant corrects the improper incorporation by reference by submitting an amendment to amend the specification or drawings to include the material incorporated by reference. A statement that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter is also required. 37 CFR 1.57(g). See also In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 569, 179 USPQ 157 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 579, 179 USPQ 163 (CCPA 1973); In re Hawkins, 486 F.2d 577, 179 USPQ 167 (CCPA 1973). Improper incorporation by reference statements and late corrections thereof require expenditure of unnecessary examination resources and slow the prosecution process. Applicants know (or should know) whether they want material incorporated by reference, and must timely correct any incorporation by reference errors. Correction must be done within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h).
An incorporation by reference that does not comply with 37 CFR 1.57(c), (d), or (e) is not effective to incorporate such material unless corrected within any time period set by the Office (should the noncompliant incorporation by reference be first noticed by the Office and applicant informed thereof), but in no case later than the close of prosecution as defined by 37 CFR 1.114(b) (should applicant be the first to notice the noncompliant incorporation by reference and the Office informed thereof), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier. The phrase "or abandonment of the application" is included in 37 CFR 1.57(h) to address the situations where an application is abandoned prior to the close of prosecution, e.g., the situation where an application is abandoned after a non-final Office action.
37 CFR 1.57(h)(1) authorizes the correction of noncompliant incorporation by reference statements that do not use the root of the words "incorporate" and "reference" in the incorporation by reference statement when the application as filed clearly conveys an intent to incorporate the material by reference. This correction can usually be made, for example, when an originally filed claim of an application identifies an amino acid or nucleotide sequence by database accession number. In making the determination of clear intent the examiner should consider the language used in referencing the sequence, the context in which it is disclosed, and any additional arguments or evidence presented by applicants.
37 CFR 1.57(h)(2) states that a citation of a document can be corrected where the document is sufficiently described to uniquely identify the document. Correction of a citation for a document that cannot be identified as the incorporated document may be new matter and is not authorized by 37 CFR 1.57(h)(2). An example would be where applicant intended to incorporate a particular journal article but supplied the citation information for a completely unrelated book by a different author, and there is no other information to identify the correct journal article. Since it cannot be determined from the citation originally supplied what article was intended to be incorporated, it would be improper (e.g., new matter) to replace the original incorporation by reference with the intended incorporation by reference. A citation of a patent application by attorney docket number, inventor name, filing date and title of invention may sufficiently describe the document, but even then correction should be made to specify the application number.
A petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to suspend the time period requirement set forth in 37 CFR 1.57(h) will not be appropriate. After the application has been abandoned, applicant must file a petition to revive under 37 CFR 1.137 for the purpose of correcting the incorporation by reference. After the application has issued as a patent, applicant may correct the patent by filing a reissue application. Correcting an improper incorporation by reference with a certificate of correction is not an appropriate means of correction because it may alter the scope of the claims. The scope of the claims may be altered because 37 CFR 1.57(h) provides that an incorporation by reference that does not comply with paragraph (c), (d), or (e) is not an effective incorporation. For example, an equivalent means omitted from a patent disclosure by an ineffective incorporation by reference would be outside the scope of the patented claims. Hence, a correction of an incorporation by reference pursuant to 37 CFR 1.57 may alter the scope of the claims by adding the omitted equivalent means. Changes involving the scope of the claims should be done via the reissue process. Additionally, the availability of the reissue process for corrections would make a successful showing required under 37 CFR 1.183 unlikely. The following examples show when an improper incorporation by reference is required to be corrected:
Example 1:
Upon review of the specification, the examiner noticed that the specification included an incorporation by reference statement incorporating essential material disclosed in a foreign patent. In a non-final Office action, the examiner required the applicant to amend the specification to include the essential material.
In reply to the non-final Office action, applicant must correct the improper incorporation by reference by filing an amendment to add the essential material disclosed in the foreign patent and a statement in compliance with 37 CFR 1.57(g) within the time period for reply set forth in the non-final Office action.
Example 2:
Upon review of the specification, the examiner determined that the subject matter incorporated by reference from a foreign patent was "nonessential material" and therefore, did not object to the incorporation by reference. In reply to a non-final Office action, applicant filed an amendment to the claims to add a new limitation that was supported only by the foreign patent. The amendment filed by the applicant caused the examiner to re-determine that the incorporated subject matter was "essential material" under 37 CFR 1.57(d). The examiner rejected the claims that include the new limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in a final Office action.
Since the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) was necessitated by the applicant’s amendment, the finality of the Office action is proper. If the applicant wishes to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by filing an amendment under 37 CFR 1.57(g) to add the subject material disclosed in the foreign patent into the specification, applicant may file the amendment as an after final amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116. Alternatively, applicant may file an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 accompanied by the appropriate fee, and an amendment per 37 CFR 1.57(g) within the time period for reply set forth in the final Office action.
The following form paragraphs may be used:
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Since the material that applicant is attempting to incorporate in the specification is considered to be essential material, an appropriate objection to the specification under 35 U.S.C. 132 and/or rejection of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, should be made. One or more of form paragraphs 7.31.01 to 7.31.04, as for example, should be used following this form paragraph.
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to [1] is ineffective because [2].
1. In bracket 1, identify the document such as an application or patent number or other identification.
2. In bracket 2, give reason(s) why it is ineffective (e.g., the root words "incorporate" and/or "reference" have been omitted, see 37 CFR 1.57(c)(1); the reference document is not clearly identified as required by 37 CFR 1.57(c)(2) ).
3. This form paragraph should be followed by form paragraph 6.19.03.
The incorporation by reference will not be effective until correction is made to comply with 37 CFR 1.57(c), (d), or (e). If the incorporated material is relied upon to meet any outstanding objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office, the correction must be made within any time period set by the Office for responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. Compliance will not be held in abeyance with respect to responding to the objection, rejection, or other requirement for the incorporation to be effective. In no case may the correction be made later than the close of prosecution as defined in 37 CFR 1.114(b), or abandonment of the application, whichever occurs earlier.
Any correction inserting material by amendment that was previously incorporated by reference must be accompanied by a statement that the material being inserted is the material incorporated by reference and the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The filing date of any application wherein essential material is improperly incorporated by reference will not be affected by applicant’s correction where (A) there is a clear intent to incorporate by reference the intended material and the correction is to add the root words of "incorporate" and "reference," (B) the incorporated document can be uniquely identified and the correction is to clarify the document’s identification, and (C) where the correction is to insert the material from the reference where incorporation is to an unpublished U.S. patent application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication.
Reliance on a commonly assigned, prior filed or concurrently filed copending application by a different inventor may ordinarily be made for the purpose of completing the disclosure provided the incorporated material is directed to nonessential material. See 37 CFR 1.57(e). See In re Fried, 329 F.2d 323, 141 USPQ 27 (CCPA 1964), and General Electric Co. v. Brenner, 407 F.2d 1258, 159 USPQ 335 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
Since a disclosure must be complete as of the filing date, subsequent publications or subsequently filed applications cannot be relied on to establish a constructive reduction to practice or an enabling disclosure as of the filing date. White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc., 713 F.2d 788, 218 USPQ 961 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Scarbrough, 500 F.2d 560, 182 USPQ 298 (CCPA 1974); In re Glass, 492 F.2d 1228, 181 USPQ 31 (CCPA 1974).
The limitations on the material which may be incorporated by reference in U.S. patent applications which are to issue as U.S. patents do not apply to applications relied on only to establish an earlier effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120. Neither 35 U.S.C. 119(a) nor 35 U.S.C. 120 places any restrictions or limitations as to how the claimed invention must be disclosed in the earlier application to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, an application is entitled to rely upon the filing date of an earlier application, even if the earlier application itself incorporates essential material by reference to another document. See Ex parte Maziere, 27 USPQ2d 1705, 1706-07 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
The reason for incorporation by reference practice with respect to applications which are to issue as U.S. patents is to provide the public with a patent disclosure which minimizes the public’s burden to search for and obtain copies of documents incorporated by reference which may not be readily available. Through the Office’s incorporation by reference policy, the Office ensures that reasonably complete disclosures are published as U.S. patents. The same policy concern does not apply where the sole purpose for which an applicant relies on an earlier U.S. or foreign application is to establish an earlier filing date. Incorporation by reference in the earlier application of (1) patents or applications published by foreign countries or regional patent offices, (2) nonpatent publications, (3) a U.S. patent or application which itself incorporates "essential material" by reference, or (4) a foreign application, is not critical in the case of a "benefit" application.
When an applicant, or a patent owner in a reexamination or interference, claims the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application which incorporates material by reference, the applicant or patent owner may be required to supply copies of the material incorporated by reference. For example, an applicant may claim the benefit of the filing date of a foreign application which itself incorporates by reference another earlier filed foreign application. If necessary, due to an intervening reference, applicant should be required to supply a copy of the earlier filed foreign application, along with an English language translation. A review can then be made of the foreign application and all material incorporated by reference to determine whether the foreign application discloses the invention sought to be patented in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) so that benefit may be accorded. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 10 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and 211 et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213 - 216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP § 217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a) ). Although, as discussed above, an incorporation by reference statement can be used as a safeguard against an omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, it should be noted that an incorporation by reference statement will not satisfy the specific reference requirement of 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120 or 37 CFR 1.78. See Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank, 887 F.3d 1309, 126 USPQ2d 317 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Simulated or predicted test results and prophetical examples (paper examples) are permitted in patent applications. Working examples correspond to work actually performed and may describe tests which have actually been conducted and results that were achieved. Paper examples describe the manner and process of making an embodiment of the invention which has not actually been conducted. Paper examples should not be represented as work actually done. No results should be represented as actual results unless they have actually been achieved. Paper examples should not be described using the past tense. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Promega Corp., 323 F.3d 1354, 1367, 66 USPQ2d 1385, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For further guidance, see "Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application", 86 FR 35074 (July 1, 2021).
For problems arising from the designation of materials by trademarks and trade names, see MPEP § 608.01(v).
· (a) If the number or nature of the amendments or the legibility of the application papers renders it difficult to consider the application, or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, the Office may require the entire specification, including the claims, or any part thereof, be rewritten.
· (b) Subject to § 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding the claims, may be filed at any point up to payment of the issue fee if it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter.
· (c) A substitute specification submitted under this section must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown pursuant to this paragraph.
· (d) A substitute specification under this section is not permitted in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding.
The specification is sometimes in such faulty English that a new specification is necessary; in such instances, a new specification should be required.
Form paragraph 6.28 may be used where the specification is in faulty English.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
37 CFR 1.125(a) applies to a substitute specification required by the Office. If the number or nature of the amendments or the legibility of the application papers renders it difficult to consider the application, or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, the Office may require the entire specification, including the claims, or any part thereof be rewritten. Note that legibility includes ability to be photocopied and scanned so that suitable reprints can be made and papers can be electronically reproduced by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition. See MPEP § 608.01.
Form paragraph 6.28.01 may be used where the examiner, for reasons other than faulty English, requires a substitute specification.
A substitute specification [1] the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because [2].
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strikethrough except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strikethrough cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
1. In bracket 1, insert either --excluding-- or --including--.
2. In bracket 2, insert clear and concise examples of why a new specification is required.
3. A new specification is required if the number or nature of the amendments render it difficult to consider the application or to arrange the papers for printing or copying, 37 CFR 1.125.
4. See also form paragraph 13.01 for partial rewritten specification.
37 CFR 1.125(b) applies to a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant. Subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 1.312, a substitute specification, excluding claims, may be voluntarily filed by the applicant at any point up to the payment of the issue fee provided it is accompanied by a statement that the substitute specification includes no new matter. The Office will accept a substitute specification voluntarily filed by the applicant if the requirements of 37 CFR 1.125(b) are satisfied.
37 CFR 1.125(c) requires a substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(a) or (b) be submitted in clean form without markings. A marked-up copy of the substitute specification showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record must also be submitted. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown under 37 CFR 1.125(c). The paragraphs of any substitute specification, other than the claims, should be individually numbered in Arabic numerals (for example [0001]) so that any amendment to the specification may be made by replacement paragraph in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1).
A substitute specification filed under 37 CFR 1.125(b) must be accompanied by a statement indicating that no new matter was included. There is no obligation on the examiner to make a detailed comparison between the old and the new specifications for determining whether new matter has been added. If, however, an examiner becomes aware that new matter is present, an objection thereto should be made.
The filing of a substitute specification rather than amending the original application has the advantage for applicants of eliminating the need to prepare an amendment of the specification. The Office receives the advantage of saving the time needed to enter amendments in the specification and a reduction in the number of printing errors. A substitute specification is not permitted in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.125(d).
A substitute specification which complies with 37 CFR 1.125 should normally be entered. A substitute specification which is denied entry should be so marked.
Form paragraph 6.28.02 may be used to notify applicant that a substitute specification submitted under 37 CFR 1.125(b) has not been entered.
The substitute specification filed [1] has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: [2]
1. In bracket 2, insert statement of why the substitute specification is improper, for example:
-- the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing--,
-- a marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the clean copy)--;
-- a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (in addition to the marked-up copy)--; or,
-- the substitute specification has been filed:
- in a reissue application or in a reexamination proceeding, 37 CFR 1.125(d) -, or
- after payment of the issue fee-, or
- containing claims (to be amended)- --.
2. A substitute specification filed after final action or appeal (prior to the date an appeal brief is filed pursuant to 37 CFR 41.37, see 37 CFR 41.33(a) ) is governed by 37 CFR 1.116. A substitute specification filed after the mailing of a notice of allowance is governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
See MPEP § 714.20 regarding entry of amendments which include an unacceptable substitute specification.
For new matter in amendment, see MPEP § 608.04.
For application prepared for issue, see MPEP § 1302.02.
The applicant may refer to the general state of the art and the advance thereover made by his or her invention, but he or she is not permitted to make derogatory remarks concerning the inventions of others. Derogatory remarks are statements disparaging the products or processes of any particular person other than the applicant, or statements as to the merits or validity of applications or patents of another person. Mere comparisons with the prior art are not considered to be disparaging, per se.
Canceled text in the specification can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the previously canceled matter as a new insertion. 37 CFR 1.121(b)(4). A claim canceled by amendment (deleted in its entirety) may be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(5). See MPEP § 714.
No part of a specification can normally be transferred to another application. Similarly, drawings cannot normally be transferred to another application See MPEP § 608.02(i).
*****
The terms "trade name" and "commercial name" mean any name used by a person to identify his or her business or vocation.
The term "trademark" includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
· (1) used by a person, or
· (2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish his or her goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods, even if that source is unknown.
The term "service mark" means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
· (1) used by a person, or
· (2) which a person has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to identify and distinguish the services of one person, including a unique service, from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services, even if that source is unknown. Titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.
The term "certification mark" means any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof-
· (1) used by a person other than its owner, or
· (2) which its owner has a bona fide intention to permit a person other than the owner to use in commerce and files an application to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
to certify regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristics of such person's goods or services or that the work or labor on the goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization.
The term "collective mark" means a trademark or service mark-
· (1) used by the members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization, or
· (2) which such cooperative, association, or other collective group or organization has a bona fide intention to use in commerce and applies to register on the principal register established by this chapter,
and includes marks indicating membership in a union, an association, or other organization.
The term "mark" includes any trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark.
*****
A mark as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1127 (i.e., trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark) or trade name may be used in a patent application to identify an article or product, service, or organization if:
· (A) its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or
· (B) its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.
See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Condition (A) or (B) must be met at the time of filing of the complete application.
The relationship between a mark or trade name and the product, service, or organization it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain, and arbitrary. For example, the formula or characteristics of a product may change from time to time and yet it may continue to be sold under the same mark or trade name. In patent specifications, the details of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or trade name should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language, so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary marks or trade names which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of the owner do not constitute such language. Ex Parte Kattwinkle, 12 USPQ 11 (Bd. App. 1931).
If the product, service, or organization to which a mark refers is set forth in such language that its identity is clear, examiners are authorized to permit the use of the mark if it is distinguished from common descriptive nouns by capitalization. See subsection II, below. If a mark or trade name has a fixed and definite meaning, it constitutes sufficient identification unless some specific characteristic of the product, service, or organization is involved in the invention such that further description is necessary to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. In that event, as also in those cases where the mark or trade name has no fixed and definite meaning, identification by scientific or other explanatory language is necessary. See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, 1214 n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Gebauer-Fuelnegg, 121 F.2d 505, 50 USPQ 125 (CCPA 1941).
The matter of sufficiency of disclosure must be decided on an individual case-by-case basis. In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378, 161 USPQ 789 (CCPA 1969).
Where the identification of a mark or trade name is introduced by amendment, it must be restricted to the characteristics of the product, service, or organization known at the time the application was filed to avoid any question of new matter.
If proper identification of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or a trade name is omitted from the specification and such identification is deemed necessary under the principles set forth above, the examiner should hold the disclosure insufficient and reject, on the ground of insufficient disclosure, any claims based on the identification of the product, service, or organization merely by mark or trade name. If, for example, a product cannot be otherwise defined, an amendment defining the process of its manufacture may be permitted unless such amendment would result in the introduction of new matter. Such amendments must be supported by satisfactory showings establishing that the specific nature or process of manufacture of the product as set forth in the amendment was known at the time of filing of the application.
Although the use of marks having definite meanings is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected. Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks.
Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether an apparent or identified mark in the patent application is a registered mark or to what particular goods a registered mark applies.
Form paragraph 6.20 may be used to inform applicant of the proprietary nature of marks used in commerce.
The use of the term [1], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
1. Capitalize each letter of the term in the bracket or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
2. Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether a mark identified in the patent application is a registered mark or not.
The examiner should not permit the use of language such as "the product X (a descriptive name) commonly known as Y (trade name or mark)" since such language does not bring out the fact that the latter is a trade name or mark. Language such as "the product X (a descriptive name) sold under the trademark Y" is permissible.
The use of a mark in the title of an application should be avoided as well as the use of a mark coupled with the word "type", e.g., "Band-Aid type bandage."
In the event that a registered mark is a "symbol or device" depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the "symbol or device" is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification.
Technology Center Directors should reply to all complaint letters regarding the misuse of marks used in commerce and forward a copy of the complaint letter and reply to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patents who oversees the Office of Petitions. Where a letter demonstrates the misuse of a mark in a patent application publication, the Office should, where the application is still pending, ensure that the mark is replaced by appropriate generic terminology.
*****
· (d) A copyright or mask work notice may be placed in a design or utility patent application adjacent to copyright and mask work material contained therein. The notice may appear at any appropriate portion of the patent application disclosure. For notices in drawings, see § 1.84(s). The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, "©1983 John Doe" (17 U.S.C. 401) and "*M* John Doe" (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in paragraph (e) of this section is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.
· (e) The authorization shall read as follows:
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.
