¶ 7.05.04    Utility Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph

Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101  because the claimed invention is not supported by either a [2] asserted utility or a well established utility.

[3]

Claim [4] also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, since the claimed invention is not supported by either a [5] asserted utility or a well established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.

Examiner Note:

1. Where the specification would not enable one skilled in the art to make the claimed invention, or where alternative reasons support the enablement rejection, a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, enablement should be made using the factors set forth in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and an undue experimentation analysis. See MPEP §§ 2164 - 2164.08(c).

2 Use Format A, B, or C below as appropriate.

    Format A:
    • (a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
    • (b) Insert --specific and substantial-- in inserts 2 and 5.
    • (c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well established utility.
    • (d) Format A is to be used when there is no asserted utility and when there is an asserted utility but that utility is not specific and substantial.

    Format B:
    • (a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
    • (b) Insert --credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
    • (c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well established utility.

    Format C: For claims that have multiple utilities, some of which are not specific and substantial, some of which are not credible, but none of which are specific, substantial and credible:
    • (a) Insert the same claim numbers in brackets 1 and 4.
    • (b) Insert --specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible-- in inserts 2 and 5.
    • (c) In bracket 3, insert the explanation as to why the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility, a credible asserted utility or a well established utility. Each utility should be addressed.