Posts Tagged: "rejection"

Whether the Citron report is intentionally wrong for the purpose of causing PolarityTE stock to tumble, which it has, or whether it is recklessly wrong, or just ignorant is impossible to tell. But what Citron says can without question be characterized as absolutely incorrect… Citron says that the non-final rejection was made known to PolarityTE on March 31, 2017, which they find to be conclusive proof of fraud because PolarityTE closed a transaction with shareholders on April 7, 2017. The problem, however, is the non-final rejection was mailed by the USPTO and sent to the law firm representing PolarityTE on April 7, 2017… Citron also claims that PolarityTE has engaged in fraud because they received a final rejection from the patent examiner and did not notify shareholders. Again, only those who are completely unfamiliar with patent practice and procedure could possibly make such an erroneous claim. A final rejection is anything but final in the everyday meaning of the word.

We believe that the fallout from the Court’s ruling last week will be less dire for patent owners than most commentators predict. The conventional wisdom is that TC Heartland will cause a mass exodus of patent filings from the Eastern District of Texas and other supposedly plaintiff-friendly venues to Delaware, the Northern District of California and, to a lesser extent, the other states. The assumption underlying this view is that all those plaintiffs will be forced to file in the state where the defendant is incorporated. Yet even post-TC Heartland, patent owners have options and can continue to be strategic about how and where they proceed.

Unlike certain rejections one faces in life, a rejection from a patent examiner is never the end of the story, and definitely not final – even when the rejection is called a final rejection all hope is not lost and there are things that can be done to continue to attempt to persuade and ultimately convince the patent examiner you are entitled to a patent… Generally speaking, what you will want to do after you get a final rejection will not be the type of thing you will have the right to do. In that likely situation, the most common thing to do is file what is called a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), which is allowed under 37 CFR 1.114. An applicant request continued examination of an application at any time after prosecution in the application is closed.

The refusal to grant claims because the subject matter as claimed is considered unpatentable is called a “rejection.” The term “rejected” is used by the patent examiner when the substance of the patent claims being sought are deemed to be unallowable under 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and/or 112. If the form of the claim (as distinguished from its substance) is improper, an “objection” is made. An example of a matter of form as to which objection is made is dependency of a claim on a previously rejected claim. You can also get an objection where claims have not been properly grouped together in violation of 37 CFR 75(g).

While Alice rejections can be found all over the USPTO, roughly two-thirds of them are found in TC 3600. Only TC 2900 has not had any Alice rejections. Looking deeper into the 3620s, 3680s, and 3690s, the reach of Alice becomes apparent. Using Juristat’s data, we counted all rejections in these art units since June 19, 2014, the date Alice was decided. We then calculated the percentage of those rejections that cited Alice, focusing only on examiners that have issued at least ten rejections since the Alice decision. As shown in Figure 3, roughly three-quarters of all rejections in these art units are Alice rejections, with several examiners having a 100% Alice rejection rate.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. I’ve seen similar rejections in a diverse (and utterly random) number of art areas and technologies ranging from predictive computer algorithms, to voice recognition technology, to methods for user-customization of advertising received on a device. While some of the rejected claims were arguably directed to an abstract idea, only a small minority had any apparent connection to “organizing human activity” as that phrase has been used in the case law.