About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« CRISPR Housekeeping | Main | Inherited Neanderthal Gene Encodes Genetic Risk for COVID-19 »

November 01, 2020


I have all five of these tricks in a single Office action right now. The claims are for a communication system, and they all recite numerous physical components, but the examiner just waved those away as "generic computers" because the specification says they can include processors, ASICs, software, etc. It took something like 6 hours just to rebut the 101 rejection(s) (which, per Trick 3, were all lumped together).

Thank you for your write up here. I agree with all your points.

This is a great summary of the frustrations of §101 rejections, thanks.

Thanks also want for what must be a huge effort in continuing to provide this blog. It’s an absolute “must read” for me

Please keep us updated with respect to PTO's reply to your 101 rebuttal arguments. Thanks in advance!

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31