Global Dossier Public Access provides secure, online access to the file histories of related applications from participating IP Offices. This includes all international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) as well as patent applications from World Intellectual Property Organization-Centralized Access to Search and Examination (WIPO-CASE) participating offices. By using this service, examiners will be able to view Office Actions (along with machine translations), citations, and classification data for those applications. This service also provides Office Action Indicators to help examiners identify applications that contain office actions, a Collections View for saving documents and applications for review later on in the session, and the ability to download the documents in an application. See www.wipo.int/case/en/ for additional information regarding WIPO-CASE.
There are multiple classification systems used throughout the international patent system. These include the Cooperative Patent Classification System (CPC), U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC), the International Patent Classification System (IPC), and the Locarno International Classification (Locarno). As of January 1, 2013, the USPTO moved from using the USPC system to the CPC system for classification of pending utility applications. All U.S. utility patents and U.S. utility Patent Application Publications published after December 31, 2014 no longer receive classifications within the USPC. The USPC is now a static searchable database for all utility areas. Only U.S. design and plant patents and U.S. plant patent application publications continue to receive classification within the USPC.
The U.S. Patent Classification System is a static system and is no longer updated for the utility classes. The USPC remains active for the plant and design classes.
The United States Patent Office (the Office) maintains an electronic classification manual for the U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC). The complete manual is available to USPTO personnel from the Classification Home Page (https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/classification-resources/ ), which is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit. The Manual of Classification is also available via the Internet at www.uspto.gov/SearchClassification, however The Manual of Classification will no longer be updated after December 31, 2014. See MPEP § 905 et seq. for information regarding the Cooperative Patent Classification System.
Each class has a title descriptive of its subject matter, is identified by a class number, and is subdivided into a number of subclasses. Each subclass also has a descriptive title, is identified by a subclass number, and the subclass number is an integral number that may contain a decimal portion and/or alpha characters. A complete identification of a subclass requires both the class and subclass number and any alpha or decimal designations; e.g., 417/161.1A identifies Class 417, Subclass 161.1A.
The Manual of Classification for the USPC system contains ordered arrangements of all class and subclass titles, the ordered arrangements are referred to as class schedules. The class and subclass titles are brief and are as suggestive as possible of the subject matter included. Therefore, it is best not to depend exclusively upon titles to explain the subject matter encompassed by a class and subclass but to refer also to the respective definitions and notes. If a search is to be expeditious, accurate, and complete, the Manual of Classification should be used only as a key to the class or subclass definition and appended notes.
The Manual of Classification for the USPC system has the following parts:
The Index to the U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC) is an alphabetic listing of technical and common terms referring to specific classes and subclasses of the USPC. The index is used as an initial entry into the system and should not be considered exhaustive. All appropriate class schedules should be scanned for specifically related subclasses, and the definitions and associated notes of the pertinent classifications should also be reviewed, even when the citation found in the Index appears to be restricted to a specific subject matter area.
The Index is regularly updated. Suggestions or changes to the Index are encouraged and should be directed to the Technology Center (TC) classification contact in the TCs.
The Index is available online to USPTO personnel from the Classification Home Page – USPC Index. The Classification Home Page (http://ptoweb:8081/ ) is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit.
All of the classes within USPC have definitions.
Definitions state the subject matter of the classes and subclasses in much more detail than it is possible to state in the brief class and subclass titles. A study of the definitions is essential to determine the proper classification of subject matter within the U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC).
All classes and subclasses (class definitions) in the USPC are available online to USPTO personnel from the Classification Home Page under the heading Search Classification Data. The Classification Home Page (https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/ classification-resources/ ) is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit. The class definitions are archived in portable document formats (PDFs) to CD-ROM every June and December.
It should be noted that classification orders frequently affect existing definitions. Personal sets of definitions used by examiners should be periodically revised to reflect these changes. Classification Orders are available online to USPTO personnel from the Classification Home Page under the heading Classification Reports. The Classification Home Page is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit.
Many of the definitions have accompanying notes. These notes are of two types: (A) notes that supplement definitions by explaining terms or giving examples, and (B) notes referring to related disclosures located in other classes or subclasses.
The latter notes are termed "See or Search" notes and are helpful in explaining the limits of a class or subclass. They generally state the relationship to, and difference from, other identified subject matter collections. Each "See or Search" note helps a user reach a decision either to include or exclude an area containing relevant subject matter.
Search notes are not exhaustive and do not limit the search but suggest additional fields of search. Additionally, since a search note that applies to a particular subclass is rarely repeated for subclasses indented thereunder, it is advisable to review the search notes of all parent subclasses.
U.S. utility patents and U.S. utility patent application publications published after December 31, 2014, do not receive a designated U.S. patent classification. U.S. design and plant patents and U.S. plant patent application publications receive a designated U.S. patent classification. Current classification information for U.S. patents is available from the sources indicated below.
The Office of Patent Classification Home Page address on the Internet is www.uspto.gov/Classification. The site is the clearinghouse for classification information published in hyper-text mark-up language (HTML) and Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF) by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The site includes the following: (A) the Index to the U.S. Patent Classification system (USPC) (linked from "Index to USPC" under the "United States Classification (USPC) system" menu); (B) class definitions (linked from "USPC Class Numbers and Titles"); and (C) class schedules (linked from "USPC Class Numbers and Titles"). The site integrates with the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database site by allowing a search of a subclass by clicking on a patent icon in the classification schedules and definitions which generates a search result in the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database. The USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database provides full-text of all US patents issued since January 1, 1976, and full-page images of each page of every US patent issued since 1790. Therefore, it is possible to see every patent in a subclass by browsing the classification schedules using the Classification Home Page in combination with the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database.
The address for the Patent Classification Home Page on the USPTO intranet is https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/ patents/classification-resources/. The Classification Home Page is also accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit. The site is the clearinghouse for classification information by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Examiners and the public are provided with access to identical information for the Index, schedules, and definitions.
The Intranet Classification Home Page site also includes links to international information such as CPC schedules, IPC Concordance, IPC Schedules, IPC Catchword Index, WIPO Handbook on Industrial Property Information and Documentation, and to national (U.S.) information such as Overview of the Classification System, Classification Guides and Bulletins, and the Patent Classification Search Page.
The Patent Classification Retrieval System (PCRS) provides Original (OR) and Cross-Reference (XR) classification information for individual patents and listings of patents contained in subclasses. This data is updated bimonthly with new issues, withdrawn patents and reclassifications.
The automated search tools on examiners’ desktop computers include the Examiner’s Automated Search Tool (EAST), the Web-Based Examiner Search Tool (WEST), the Patents End-to-End Search tool (SEARCH) and the Foreign Patent Access System (FPAS). EAST, WEST, and SEARCH provide examiners with access to the: (A) full text of U.S. published applications since 2001; (B) full text of U.S. patents granted since 1970; and (C) optically scanned full text of U.S. patents granted 1920-1970. Additionally, EAST, WEST, and SEARCH each provide current classification information and images for all U.S. published applications and patents. Images are available for foreign patent documents, and English language abstracts are available for many foreign patent documents published since 1978 using the automated search tools. Specific instructions for gaining access to the various documents available using the automated search tools can be found on the EAST, WEST, SEARCH and BRS Search Strategy webpages on the intranet, available on the examiners’ desktop computers.
The EAST and WEST products are also available to users in the Patent Search Room at the USPTO.
Utility patents, applications, and patent application publications receive a classification designation under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system. Only design and plant applications/patents and plant application publications receive classification designations under USPC. See MPEP § 905 for information on CPC.
The statutory authority for establishing and maintaining a classification system is given in the following statute, which states:
The Director may revise and maintain the classification by subject matter of United States letters patent, and such other patents and printed publications as may be necessary or practicable, for the purpose of determining with readiness and accuracy the novelty of inventions for which applications for patent are filed.
Many of the principles that form the basis of classification within USPC used in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are set forth in the "Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System" which can be accessed from either the intranet on the Classification Home Page (http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/classification- resources/ ) or the internet on the Office of Patent Classification home page (www.uspto.gov/Classification ). Any questions not covered in this handbook can be directed to the Office of Patent Classification.
In using any classification system, it is necessary to analyze the organization of the class or classes to be included in the search.
The initial analysis should determine which one or ones of the several types of subject matter (manufacture, art, apparatus, or stock material) are contained in the class being considered.
Further, relative to each type of subject matter, it is necessary to consider each of the various combinations and subcombinations set out below:
Basic Subject Matter Combined with Feature for Some Additional Purpose. The added purpose is in excess of the scope of the subject matter for the class, as defined in the class definition; e.g., adding a sifter to a stone crusher which gives the added function of separating the crushed stone.
Basic Subject Matter Combined with Perfecting Feature. Features may be added to the basic subject matter which do not change the character thereof, but do perfect it for its intended purpose; e.g., an overload release means tends to perfect a stonecrusher by providing means to stop it on overload and thus prevent ruining the machine. However, this perfecting combined feature adds nothing to the basic character of the machine.
Basic Subject Matter. The combination of features necessary and essential to the fundamental character of the subject matter treated; e.g., a stonecrusher requires a minimum number of features as essential before it can function as such.
Subcombinations Specialized to Basic Subject Matter. Each type of basic subject matter may have subcombinations specialized to use therewith; e.g., the crushing element of a stonecrusher.
Subcombinations of General Utility. Each type of basic subject matter may have subcombinations which have utility with other and different types of subject matter; e.g., the machine elements of a stonecrusher. Subcombinations of this character usually are provided for in some general class so that the examiner should determine in each instance where they are classified.
Many foreign patent documents received in the Office before October 1, 1995 were placed in the shoes in the Technology Center (TCs), according to either the United States Patent Classification System (USPC) or, in relatively few instances, the International Patent Classification (IPC) system. Foreign patents received by the Office after October 1, 1995 are available on the USPTO’s automated search systems, the Foreign Patent Access System (FPAS), Internet sites, and the Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) collections.
If the examiner desires to update the USPC classification of a foreign patent by changing, canceling, or adding copies, they should forward the patent (or bibliographic information) to their supervisory patent classifier with a request for the desired transaction attached.
The Foreign Patents Service Center manages Main STIC. STIC’s collections are international in scope and include foreign patents, non-patent literature, designs, trademarks, and legal information. There is an assortment of resources which reflect the information needs of examiners and researchers working in various fields of science and technology. The staff is experienced in foreign patent data retrieval, patent family searches, and document retrieval services for non-patent literature in the STIC collections.
Examiners confronted with language problems in classifying foreign-language patents may call upon the Translations Service Center of STIC for assistance (see MPEP § 901.06(a)). In addition, the Translations Service Center retains copies of translated foreign patents in the database.
Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, are published as a patent application publication pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b), unless certain exceptions apply. See MPEP § 1120.
U.S. utility patents and U.S. utility patent application publications published after December 31, 2014 do not receive classifications within the USPC and only receive classification designations within the CPC. Only U.S. design and plant patents and U.S. plant patent application publications continue to receive classifications within the USPC. See MPEP § 905 for information on CPC.
Plant patent application publications are given a primary classification (equivalent to an original classification), and may also be given a secondary classification (equivalent to a cross reference). While there may be only one primary classification for a single plant patent application publication, there may be any number of secondary classifications. The selection of a primary classification of a plant patent application publication is based on the application’s main inventive concept using the claim as a guide. A primary classification could be any U.S. class/subclass (except cross reference art collections, digests and foreign art collection subclasses). A secondary classification is based on other inventive concepts (mandatory) or valuable disclosure (discretionary), and may be any U.S. class/subclass (including cross reference collections and digests, but excluding foreign art collection subclasses). The classification of a plant patent application publication is printed on the front page of the publication.
At least 9 weeks prior to the projected publication date, applications are classified using programs designed to enable entry of certain data required for publication of patent applications. Applications are classified by giving each application at least a primary classification and an international classification. The suggested international classification(s) corresponding to each assigned U.S. classification is provided. In addition, if a figure is to be published, the figure is selected at the time of classification.
Requests for addition, deletion, or transfer of official copies of U.S. patents may be carried out by using the Patent Post Publication Classification Manager, which are available online from the Classification Home Page under the "Additional Resources" heading. The Classification Home Page is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit. The Classification Manager tool is available only for design patents.
Using these tools, examiners can request the following transactions:
The U.S. Patent Classification System (USPC) includes subclasses that have been harmonized with subclasses from the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO). Subclasses that have been harmonized have a designation of "EPO," "JPO," or "EPO/JPO" in parentheses following the subclass title to indicate if the subclass has been harmonized with the EPO or JPO or with both systems.
U.S. utility patents and U.S. utility patent application publications published after December 31, 2014 do not receive classifications within the USPC and only receive classification designations within the CPC. Only U.S. design and plant patents and U.S. plant patent application publications continue to receive classifications within the USPC.
When an application is passed to issue, it is the duty of each primary examiner to personally review the original classification and cross-referencing made by their assistants in the issuing classification boxes on the Issue Classification sheet. This form provides space for the full name of the "Primary Examiner" to show that the review has been made. An examiner with full signatory authority who acts personally on an application and sends it to issue should stamp and sign their name on the Issue Classification sheet ONLY in the "Primary Examiner" space.
An application, properly classified at the start of examination, may be classified differently when it is ready for allowance. The allowed claim should be reviewed in order to determine the subject matter covered thereby. It is the disclosed subject matter covered by the allowed claim that determines the original and any mandatory cross-reference classification of U.S. patents.
After all mandatory classifications have been determined, the classification to be designated as the original (OR) is determined. If all mandatory classifications are in the same class, the original classification is the mandatory classification that, looking at the schedule from the top down, is the most indented subclass array in which any classifications are assigned, in certain circumstances (e.g., the genus-species array), however, modifications of this rule may apply. See the "Examiner Handbook to the U.S. Patent Classification System".
If the mandatory classifications are in different classes, the original classification is determined by considering, in turn, the following criteria:
It should be noted that the criteria, supra, may be superseded by
Once the controlling class is determined, the original classification, looking at the schedule from the top down, is the mandatory classification that is the most indented subclass of the first subclass array in which any classifications are assigned.
For a more complete discussion of this subject, see the "Examiner Handbook to Classification" which is available online to USPTO personnel from the Classification Home Page under the heading "General Training". The Classification Home Page (https://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/classification-resources/ ) is accessible from the desktop via the Patent Examiner’s Toolkit.
Once the original classification is determined, all remaining mandatory classifications are designated as cross-references, as are any additional discretionary classifications that the examiner wishes to apply to the patent.
The examiner must complete the IFW issue classification form to indicate the class and subclass in which the patent should be classified as an original and also the classifications in which it should appear as a cross-reference. The examiner should be certain that all subclasses into which cross-references are placed are still valid.
All examiners must include alpha subclass designators in the issuing classification boxes on the IFW issue classification form at the time of issue when appropriate. This applies to both the original classification and the cross-reference classification. Any time that a patent is being issued in or cross-referenced to a subclass containing alpha subclasses, the alpha designation for the proper alpha subclass must be included. No other designation is permissible. Inclusion of only the numeric designation of a subclass which includes an alpha subclass designation is an incomplete and improper entry. A numeric subclass from which alpha subclasses have been created is designated with an "R" (denoting residual), and if the patent does not fit an indented alpha subclass, the "R" designation must be included. It is permissible to place multiple copies of a patent into a single set of alpha subclasses.
Digests and cross-reference art collections should also be included in the issuing classification boxes on the IFW issue classification form, but the original classification must never be a digest or cross-reference art collection. The indication for a copy of a patent in a digest or cross-reference art collection must be in the cross-reference area of the issuing classification boxes. A digest must be identified by class number, alpha characters DIG, and appropriate digest number.
U.S. patents cannot be classified in subclasses beginning with "FOR," since these are exclusively for foreign patents.
Where an official classification order affects an application already passed to issue, the Office of Patent Classification oversees any necessary changes. Patents issuing from applications which already have been sent to the printer will be reclassified.
Throughout the examination of a design or plant application, systematic notes should be kept as to cross-references needed either due to claimed or unclaimed disclosure. Examiners handling related subject matter should be consulted during prosecution (whether they handle larger unclaimed combinations or claimed or unclaimed, but disclosed, subcombinations), and asked if cross-references are needed.
Each consultation involving a question of the propriety of the classification of subject matter and/or the need for a cross-reference must be recorded in the SEARCH NOTES box on the file wrapper and must include: the name of each examiner consulted, the date that the consultation took place, and the results of the consultation including the consulted examiners’ or examiner’s indication of where claimed subject matter is properly classified and where subject matter disclosed but unclaimed is properly classified and whether or not a cross-reference is needed.
A cross-reference MUST be provided for all CLAIMED disclosure where possible and inserted in the issuing classification boxes at time of issue.
The examiner, after having obtained a thorough understanding of the invention disclosed and claimed in the nonprovisional application, then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents and other published documents, i.e., nonpatent literature (NPL). Any document used in the rejection of a claim is called a reference. An inventor name search should be made to identify other applications and/or patents which may be applicable as references for double patenting rejections. See MPEP § 804.
In all continuing applications, the parent applications must be reviewed by the examiner for pertinent prior art. The examiner must consider prior art which was cited and considered in the parent application. See MPEP §§ 609.02 and 2001.06(b). Where the cited prior art of a parent application has been reviewed, this fact should be made of record in accordance with the procedure set forth at paragraph (J) of MPEP § 719.05, subsection II.A. The examiner must also review the file wrapper history and prior art contained in certain proceedings and specific documents in related PTAB post-grant proceedings. See MPEP § 904.04. For national stage applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 371, the examiner will consider the documents cited in an international search report when the Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicates that both the international search report and the copies of the documents are present in the national stage application file. See MPEP § 609.03. The first search should cover the invention as described and claimed, including the inventive concepts toward which the claims appear to be directed. It should not be extended merely to add immaterial variants. The examiner’s first Office action on the merits of an application relies on references identified in this initial search.
Following the first Office action, the examiner need not ordinarily make a second search of the prior art, unless necessitated by amendments to the claims by the applicant in a reply to the first Office action, except to check to determine whether any reference which would appear to be substantially more pertinent than the prior art cited in the first Office action has become available subsequent to the initial prior art search.
In the first action on the merits of an application, the examiner must complete the "Search Notes" form to include the classification locations of domestic and foreign patents, abstract collections, and publications in which the search for prior art was made. Other information collections and sources in which the search for prior art was made must also be identified by the examiner. The examiner must also indicate the date(s) on which the search was conducted. Note MPEP § 719.05.
In subsequent actions, where the search is brought up-to-date and/or where a further search is made, the examiner must indicate on the IFW search notes form that the search has been updated and/or identify the additional field(s) of search. See MPEP § 719.05. Any search updates should include all of the relevant or pertinent databases and the search queries and classifications employed in the original search.
The breadth of the claims in the application should always be carefully noted; that is, the examiner should be fully aware of what the claims do not call for, as well as what they do require. During patent examination and reexamination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re NTP Inc., 654 F3d 1279, 99 USPQ 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis.
Frequently, a claim includes within its breadth or scope one or more variant embodiments that are not disclosed in the application, but which would anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention if found in a reference. The claim must be so analyzed and any such variant encountered during the search should be recognized.
For any claim capable of such treatment (e.g., a machine or other apparatus), the subject matter as defined by the claim may be sketched or diagrammed in order to clearly delineate the limitations of the claim. Two or more sketches, each of which is as divergent from the disclosure as is permitted by the claim, will assist the examiner in determining the claim’s actual breadth or scope. However, an applicant will not be required to submit such sketches of claim structure. In re Application filed November 16, 1945, 89 USPQ 280, 1951 C.D. 1, 646 O.G. 5 (Comm’r Pat. 1951).
All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as defined in the claim, even though different from the definition in the claim, must be considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter. See MPEP § 2181 - § 2184 for a discussion of equivalents when a claim employs means or step plus function terminology.
Not only must the art be searched within which the invention claimed is classifiable, but also all analogous arts must be searched regardless of where the claimed invention is classified.
The determination of what arts are analogous to a particular claimed invention is at times difficult. It depends upon the necessary essential function or utility of the subject matter covered by the claims, and not upon what it is called by the applicant.
For example, for search purposes, a tea mixer and a concrete mixer may both be regarded as relating to the mixing art, this being the necessary function of each. Similarly a brick-cutting machine and a biscuit cutting machine may be considered as having the same necessary function. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102.
In the examination of an application for patent, an examiner must conduct a thorough and complete search of the prior art. A search is considered thorough when all areas with the highest probability of finding prior art relevant to the invention as it is claimed and described in the specification are identified for search. Planning a thorough search of the prior art requires three distinct steps by the examiner: (A) identifying the field of search; (B) selecting the proper tool(s) to perform the search; and (C) determining the appropriate search strategy for each search tool selected. A search is considered complete when each of the identified areas are fully considered.
When determining the field of search, three reference sources must be considered - domestic patents (including patent application publications), foreign patent documents, and nonpatent literature (NPL). A thorough and complete search will include the identification and review of the areas within these sources with the highest probability of including prior art, thus none of these sources can be eliminated from the search unless the examiner has and can justify a reasonable certainty that no references, more pertinent than those already identified, are likely to be found in the source(s) eliminated. The search areas should cover the claimed subject matter and should also cover the disclosed features related to the inventive concept of the claims which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. The field of search should be prioritized, starting with the area(s) where the invention would most likely be found in the prior art.
Having determined the field of search, the examiner should then determine what search tools should be employed in conducting the search. Examiners are provided access to a wide variety of both manual and automated search tools. Choice of search tools is a key factor in ensuring that the most relevant prior art is found during the search. The choice of search tools to be used is based on the examiner’s knowledge of the coverage, strengths and weaknesses of the available search tools that are appropriate for use in an examiner’s assigned art. For example, a search tool may cover foreign patent documents; but, if that coverage does not meet the examiner’s current search needs, this should be taken into consideration by the examiner who may choose to employ other search tools in order to remedy the deficiency.
Search tool knowledge is particularly important for examiners in arts (e.g., very active, high technology) where patent documents may seriously lag behind invention and, consequently, represent a reference source of limited value. These examiners must take special care to ensure that their searches include consideration of NPL and employ the effective use of tools specialized to cover NPL pertinent to their search needs.
Search needs in some technologies (e.g., chemical structures, DNA sequences) are very specialized and can only be met through additional use of specific search tools specially constructed and maintained to respond to those needs. These tools cover all three reference sources - domestic patents (including patent application publications), foreign patent documents, and NPL.
In recognition that there are many available NPL search tools and their use is often complex, examiners have been provided and are encouraged to use the services of trained professional online search personnel located in the Technology Centers’ EICs for NPL searching. See MPEP § 901.06(a) for services available in STIC.
In crowded, highly developed arts where most claimed inventions are directed to improvements, patent documents, including patent application publications, may serve as the primary reference source. Search tool selection in such arts may focus heavily on those providing patent document coverage.
Automated search tools covering patent documents usually provide both a classified and text search capability. Text search can be powerful, especially where the art includes well-established terminology and the search need can be expressed with reasonable accuracy in textual terms. However, it is rare that a text search alone will constitute a thorough search of patent documents. Some combination of text search with other search criteria (e.g., classification, chemical structure, or molecular sequence) would be a normal expectation in most technologies.
Examiners will recognize that it is sometimes difficult to express search needs accurately in textual terms. This occurs often, though not exclusively, in mechanical arts where, for example, spatial relationships or shapes of mechanical components constitute important aspects of the claimed invention. In such situations, text searching can still be useful by employing broader text terms, with or without classification parameters. The traditional method of browsing all patent documents in one or more classifications will continue to be an important part of the search strategy when it is difficult to express search needs in textual terms.
Having determined what search tool(s) should be used to conduct the search, the examiner should then determine the appropriate search strategy for each search tool selected. The appropriate search strategy should be determined by the examiner on a case-by-case basis along with consultation with other examiners, supervisory patent examiners, and/or trained professional online search personnel, where appropriate.
In order for examiners to acquire specialized skills needed to determine an appropriate field of search in their specific arts, each Technology Center may develop specific supplemental guidance and training for its examiners. This training will augment general training and information on search tools that is normally provided through the Office of Patent Training and Search and Information Resources Administration.
A search areas included in a proper field of search normally include the classification locations in which the claimed subject matter of an application would be properly classified at the time of the application's classification or grant of a patent. However, if the above proper
