Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[john122]

The examiner rejected the sole independent claim of the application as being obvious.
The examiner however failed to make any comments regarding the dependent claims, except for the fact that they are also obvious.
In other words, the examiner simply made a blanket rejection.
Is there a section in the MPEP that indicates that the examiner must examine every claim? 
Or, is there an MPEP section that indicates that the examiner must give specific reasons as to how the claims are non-novel and obvious?
If so, can someone provide me with the MPEP section.

[klaviernista]

The examiner rejected the sole independent claim of the application as being obvious.
The examiner however failed to make any comments regarding the dependent claims, except for the fact that they are also obvious.
In other words, the examiner simply made a blanket rejection.
Is there a section in the MPEP that indicates that the examiner must examine every claim? 
Or, is there an MPEP section that indicates that the examiner must give specific reasons as to how the claims are non-novel and obvious?
If so, can someone provide me with the MPEP section.

See generally MPEP 707.07 et seq.  In particulart 707.07(d) and (g).  But note that it is often permissible for an examiner to reject a group of claims under a common rejection.

[john122]

The examiner rejected the sole independent claim of the application as being obvious.
The examiner however failed to make any comments regarding the dependent claims, except for the fact that they are also obvious.
In other words, the examiner simply made a blanket rejection.
Is there a section in the MPEP that indicates that the examiner must examine every claim? 
Or, is there an MPEP section that indicates that the examiner must give specific reasons as to how the claims are non-novel and obvious?
If so, can someone provide me with the MPEP section.

See generally MPEP 707.07 et seq.  In particulart 707.07(d) and (g).  But note that it is often permissible for an examiner to reject a group of claims under a common rejection.

klaviernista:  As best understood by your comment, the examiner can reject independent claim 1 (the sole independent claim) over reference X and reference Y.  Once the examiner has rejected independent claim 1, the examiner can simply make a general statement that dependent claims 2-5 are also obvious, without specifically commenting on how these dependent claims are obvious.

Let me be more clear on my situation.  The situation I'm having is that the opening statement of the examiner's obviousness rejection states that claims 1-5 are obvious over reference X and reference Y.  After the opening statement, the examiner provides his analysis as to how independent claim 1 is obvious over the cited references.  The obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 is thereafter immediately followed by the primary examiner's signature. 

However, no analysis or reasoning is provided for dependent claims 2-5 in the office action.  Is this even permissible according the the examination guidelines in the MPEP?  I find it hard to believe that the examiner can reject the independent claims and disregard the dependent claims. 

[klaviernista]

However, no analysis or reasoning is provided for dependent claims 2-5 in the office action.  Is this even permissible according the the examination guidelines in the MPEP?  I find it hard to believe that the examiner can reject the independent claims and disregard the dependent claims. 

It is frowned upon, but to my knowledge there is nothing in the MPEP or CFR stating that an examiner must provide a detailed, element by element analysis of each dependent claim in an Office Action.  Rather, the MPEP uses more nebulous language indicating that "piecemeal" examination should be avoided, and that the basis for the rejection of each claim should be clearly stated.  While it would appear that such language supports a position that each claim should be individually addressed, what it has been interpreted to mean is that the ground upon which each claim is rejected must be clearly stated.  As a result, the statement of rejection (e.g., Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by reference X) would be considered sufficient.

Although annoying, my experience has been that if an examiner has made a significant error with respect to the application of a particular reference to a dependent claim, that error is easy to identify and point out in a response.  Moreover, it is probably that the examiner will have to remove the rejection of the dependent claim, possibly to apply another reference.  In that instance, any subsequent office action applying a new reference to reject the dependent claim not properly be made final. 

Good luck,

Klav

[patentatt]

However, no analysis or reasoning is provided for dependent claims 2-5 in the office action.  Is this even permissible according the the examination guidelines in the MPEP?  I find it hard to believe that the examiner can reject the independent claims and disregard the dependent claims. 

It is frowned upon, but to my knowledge there is nothing in the MPEP or CFR stating that an examiner must provide a detailed, element by element analysis of each dependent claim in an Office Action.  Rather, the MPEP uses more nebulous language indicating that "piecemeal" examination should be avoided, and that the basis for the rejection of each claim should be clearly stated.  While it would appear that such language supports a position that each claim should be individually addressed, what it has been interpreted to mean is that the ground upon which each claim is rejected must be clearly stated.  As a result, the statement of rejection (e.g., Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by reference X) would be considered sufficient.

Although annoying, my experience has been that if an examiner has made a significant error with respect to the application of a particular reference to a dependent claim, that error is easy to identify and  will have to remove the rejection of the dependent claim to apply another reference.  In that instance, any subsequent office action applying the new reference could not properly be made final. 

Good luck,

Klav

The closest is probably Rule 1.104(c):

(2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.

Note that, in In re Lovin, Judge Dyk would basically allow examiners to delay explaining dependent claim rejections until the Examiner's Answer (i.e. if applicants never separately argue them until the appeal brief).

[john122]

The problem with my application is that claim 1 was rejected as being obvious over reference X and Official Notice.
I have a very good feeling that any arguments presented for the dependent claims (i.e., reference X doesn't teach or suggest the limitations recited in the dependent claims) will still likely result in a Final OA - namely, because the examiner will give me some ridiculous statement that the limitations of the dependent claims are well-known in the art.
That is, the examiner will again take Official Notice for the dependent claims and make the next OA final.

[klaviernista]

The problem with my application is that claim 1 was rejected as being obvious over reference X and Official Notice.
I have a very good feeling that any arguments presented for the dependent claims (i.e., reference X doesn't teach or suggest the limitations recited in the dependent claims) will still likely result in a Final OA - namely, because the examiner will give me some ridiculous statement that the limitations of the dependent claims are well-known in the art.
That is, the examiner will again take Official Notice for the dependent claims and make the next OA final.

The number 1 question I ask when Examiner's take official notice is whether their position passess the sniff test.  If not, I challenge them on it.  After all, if something is "so" well known that official notice is proper, the Examiner should be able to dig up a reference to support their position.