Do You Respond Well to Rejection?

Learn best practices for responding to a rejection of a patent application based on the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (enablement and written description), § 112(b) (indefiniteness), or § 112(f) (means-plus-function).

READ NOW »

Related Content

• Written Description Statements of Law
  Check out this useful reference when analyzing whether claims satisfy the written description requirement for utility patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and responding to a patent examiner’s rejection on this ground.
• Office Action Response Argument (Enablement and Written Description Under Section 112(a))
  Use the arguments in this form when responding to a rejection of pending patent claims for lack of enablement or lack of adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). 
• Office Action Response Argument (Means-Plus-Function and Indefiniteness under Section 112)
  Adopt the arguments in this form when responding to an office action in which the examiner interprets a claim limitation containing functional language as governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (i.e., as a means-plus-function limitation) or as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.

Experience Lexis+