Design Patents and Section 112 Introduction Working with design patents can be enjoyable because they consist mainly of a drawing or set of drawings. There is some written description to be sure, but absent are the typical pages and pages of text usually found in utility patents. However, attractive drawings
Why Design Patent Pro (DPP) ProSearch? DPP ProSearch is intended to fill a gap in the resources available to design patent practitioners by providing a searchable database of design patent applications containing at least one non-final rejection. New case law and administrative decisions related to design patents are readily
Table of Contents Quick Start Instructions Detailed Instructions for Conducting Searches 1. Enter a Search Term in the Search Bar 2. Review Results 3. Narrow Results with Additional Search Terms 4. View Items Per Page 5. Search Methods 6. Enter an Issue Date
Introduction Use ProSearch to search through selected documents in design patent prosecution histories. Prosecution history documents are updated weekly. As of March 4, 2024, there are selected documents from over 35,000 design patent prosecution histories issued during 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 to present. New prosecution histories will be added
1. Do drawing figures contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should be included. 2. Do drawing figures not contain broken lines? Then a broken line statement should not be included. 3. Does the broken line statement (BLS) expressly identify what is represented by each type of
Common Rejections In General 1. Improperly including a broken line statement when no broken lines exist in the drawing figures. If the drawing figures have no broken lines, then a broken line statement should not be included. This sometime happens when drawing figures containing broken lines are cancelled during
1. Necessity of a Broken Line Statement MPEP § 1503.02 (III) entitled “Broken Lines” states “[u]nclaimed subject matter must be described as forming no part of the claimed design or of a specified embodiment thereof.” If the drawing figures contain broken lines and a broken line statement is not
Use of the Phrase “are for illustrative purposes only” The confusion over whether and how to use the phrase “are for illustration purposes only” in a broken line statement is understandable. The MPEP expressly recommended use of the phrase without any reference to environment or other qualifier up until August
To fully understand the current confusion that exists in broken line practice and how best to avoid objections and rejections, it is helpful to consider the development of design patent prosecution and how case law influenced revisions to Chapter 1500 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). These revisions
Many rejections to broken line statements are common and typically result from language choice that fails to satisfy the two basic requirements of precisely identifying what is represented by the broken lines and defining their relationship to the claimed design. For an explanation of the two basic requirements, click here.