When amending an application in response to a rejection, the applicant must clearly explain why he considers the amended claims to be patentable given the state of the technique disclosed by the prejudicial decision applications cited or by the objections raised. It must also explain how amended claims avoid such references or objections. After the applicant`s response, the application will be reviewed and the applicant will be informed of the status of the claims, i.e. if the claims are dismissed or challenged or if the applications are admitted in the same manner as after the first review. The second action office is usually finalized. Whether you can get patent protection for an application depends on the element of your application you want to protect. If you want to protect an application idea or technical function, patent protection is a possible option. Under applicable national law, the software that runs your application can be protected by patents if it has certain technical features. However, you must ensure that your technical idea meets all patentability requirements to obtain patent protection, and it may be years before a patent is obtained. b) Partial views – If necessary, a view of a large machine or device as a whole can be divided into partial views on a single sheet or extended to several sheets if the ability to understand the view is not lost.

Partial views that are drawn on separate sheets must always be able to be connected from one edge to the other, so that no partial view contains parts of another partial view. Include a view that shows the whole formed by the partial views and indicates the positions of the parts displayed. If part of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and enlarged view should be labeled as separate views. To be patentable, a technology must be not only “new” but also “not obvious.” A technology is obvious (and therefore not patentable) if a person with “ordinary skill” in the relevant field of technology at the date of filing the patent application would have considered the technology to be obvious. In other words, an invention that would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills at the time of invention is not patentable. Specifically, in 35 U.S.C. 103, it is stated that the oath or declaration required by the applicant in addition to the explanations required for other applications must include the indication that the applicant has sexually reproduced the new plant variety. If the plant is a newly found plant, the oath or explanation must also indicate that the plant was found in a production area. a) White black.

Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not normally permitted in use and design requests.