Patent Office Examiners Can Use Just Unlabeled Drawings From a PriorArt Document To Reject Your Application

In developing a patent filing strategy, it can be prudent to utilize prior art searches to ensure that there is strategic value in the potential scope of coverage sufficient to warrant the investment in preparing and filing a new patent application. However, sometimes inventors can too easily dismiss prior art references by focusing on the details of the reference. A patent examiner can and will cite references for just a portion of what is disclosed, sometimes perhaps only using a drawing that happens to show a features that has nothing to do with the invention claimed in the patent document itself. In other words, while an inventor may dismiss the prior art document because it focuses/claims some specific features that is quite different from what the inventor considers to be their invention, patent examiners look at a reference for all that it discloses and do not dismiss a reference because of its focus/claims.
In this way, as noted above, eve a patent drawing (without labels) can be used in isolation by an examiner to reject a patent application. A recent appeal case at the US Patent and Trademark Patent Trial and Appeal Board illustrates the issue. In case 12/629,354, the applicant (Canrig Drilling Technology Ltd.) attempted to patent direct drive mud pump design using a motor where the stator includes a specific outer cover configuration. While a cover is generally not inventive, Canrig’s claims provided a combination of features and specific positioning of the cover relative to the stator and the examiner was having difficult actually finding all of these elements together. So, the patent examiner had to rely on a drawing in one of the references that did not have any separately labeled cover discussed in the text. Nevertheless, the judges determined that because the applicant has used the cover terminology broadly, that merely excess material in the stator could qualify as a cover.
The judges explained that it is well-settled that a reference does not have to teach a feature using the same terms as an applicant or patentee, and that drawings in a utility or design patent can be cited against claims of a utility patent application. The key was what a person skilled in the art considered to be reasonably disclosed or suggested by the reference, even if the disclosure in the drawing was accidental, unintentional, or unexplained by the document text.
As such, when evaluating a new application for filing, patent applicants should take heed not to dismiss reference drawings merely because the reference is focused on another aspect or includes additional elements. Patent examiners will use only parts of the disclosed material in prior documents to reject new claims and thus the filing strategy needs to take such issues into account, even if the inventors feel that the prior document is generally not relevant.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions closes prosecution on the merits of the appl
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to rethink th
Read more