MPEP § 904 — MPEP § 904
Current through: 2022-07-01

904-How to Search 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Skip over navigation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 search for patents | search for trademarks 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Search 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 PATENTS 
 
 Patent Search 

 
 Patent Process 

 
 Patent Classification 

 
 Patent Forms 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Electronic Business Center 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Resources and Guidance 

 
 Office of Data Management 

 
 Announcements 

 
 Initiatives & Events 

 
 International Protection 

 
 Employee Locator 

 
 Contact Patents 

 

 

 
 TRADEMARKS 
 
 Trademark Search 

 
 Trademarks Process 

 
 News & Notices 

 
 Manuals, Guides, Official Gazette 

 
 Laws & Regulations 

 
 Online Filing 

 
 Contact Trademarks 

 

 

 
 IP LAW & POLICY 
 
 Rulemaking 

 
 IP Policy and Enforcement 

 
 Protecting IP Overseas 

 
 Training and Education 

 
 Training Programs & Conferences 

 
 Office of Governmental Affairs 

 
 Office of Chief Economist 

 
 Boards and Counsel 

 

 

 
 PRODUCTS & SERVICES 
 
 Electronic Data Products 

 
 XML Resources 

 
 XML Resources - Retrospective 

 
 USPTO Contact Center Order Form 

 
 Services 

 
 Locate Libraries 

 
 Training/Events 

 
 Online Services Hub 

 

 

 
 INVENTORS 
 
 Patents for Inventors 

 
 Trademarks for Inventors 

 
 Inventors Assistance 

 
 Education and Information 

 
 Scam Prevention 

 
 Pro Se and Pro Bono 

 
 Current Events 

 
 State Resources 

 
 InventorsEye Newsletter 

 

 

 
 NEWS & NOTICES 
 
 Subscription Center 

 
 Press Releases 

 
 Testimony and Speeches 

 
 Director's Forum 

 
 Systems Status 

 
 Emergency Notices 

 
 USPTO Videos 

 
 Official Gazette 

 
 Federal Register Notices 

 
 Event Calendar 

 

 

 
 FAQs 
 
 Patents FAQs 

 
 Trademarks FAQs 

 
 Assignments 

 
 Security 

 
 Musicians and Artists 

 
 Browser Plugins 

 
 Other Web Resources 

 

 

 
 ABOUT US 
 
 USPTO Leadership 

 
 USPTO Organization 

 
 USPTO Offices 

 
 Careers 

 
 Budget, Performance, and Planning 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Vendor Information 

 
 Public Advisory Committees 

 
 National Medal of Technology and Innovation 

 
 IP in Motion 

 
 Contact Us 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 Home Page 

 
 Patents 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 

 Chapter 0900 

 Section 904 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 904 How to Search [R-07.2022]

 The examiner, after having obtained a thorough understanding of the
 invention disclosed and claimed in the nonprovisional application, then searches the prior
 art as disclosed in patents and other published documents, i.e., nonpatent literature
 (NPL). Any document used in the rejection of a claim is called a reference. An inventor
 name search should be made to identify other applications and/or patents which may be
 applicable as references for double patenting rejections. See MPEP § 804 .
 

 In all continuing applications, the parent applications must be reviewed
 by the examiner for pertinent prior art. The examiner must consider prior art which was
 cited and considered in the parent application. See MPEP §§ 609.02 and 2001.06(b) . Where the
 cited prior art of a parent application has been reviewed, this fact should be made of
 record in accordance with the procedure set forth at paragraph (J) of MPEP § 719.05, subsection
 II.A . The examiner must also review the file wrapper history and
 prior art contained in certain proceedings and specific documents in related PTAB
 post-grant proceedings. See MPEP
 § 904.04 . For national stage applications filed under
 35 U.S.C.
 371 , the examiner will consider the documents cited in an
 international search report when the Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicates that both the
 international search report and the copies of the documents are present in the national
 stage application file. See MPEP § 609.03 . The first search should cover the invention as
 described and claimed, including the inventive concepts toward which the claims appear to
 be directed. It should not be extended merely to add immaterial variants. The examiner’s
 first Office action on the merits of an application relies on references identified in this
 initial search. 
 

 Following the first Office action, the examiner need not ordinarily make a
 second search of the prior art, unless necessitated by amendments to the claims by the
 applicant in a reply to the first Office action, except to check to determine whether any
 reference which would appear to be substantially more pertinent than the prior art cited in
 the first Office action has become available subsequent to the initial prior art search. 
 

 In the first action on the merits of an application, the examiner must
 complete the “Search Notes” form to include the classification locations of domestic and
 foreign patents, abstract collections, and publications in which the search for prior art
 was made. Other information collections and sources in which the search for prior art was
 made must also be identified by the examiner. The examiner must also indicate the date(s)
 on which the search was conducted. Note MPEP § 719.05 .
 

 In subsequent actions, where the search is brought up-to-date and/or where
 a further search is made, the examiner must indicate on the IFW search notes form that the
 search has been updated and/or identify the additional field(s) of search. See
 MPEP
 § 719.05 . Any search updates should include all of the relevant
 or pertinent databases and the search queries and classifications employed in the original
 search.
 

 
 904.01 Analysis of Claims [R-08.2012]

 The breadth of the claims in the application should always be
 carefully noted; that is, the examiner should be fully aware of what the claims do
 not call for, as well as what they do require. During patent
 examination and reexamination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable
 interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 
 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and In re NTP Inc., 
 654 F3d 1279, 99 USPQ 1481 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case
 law pertinent to claim analysis.
 

 
 904.01(a) Variant Embodiments Within Scope of Claim [R-07.2022]

 Frequently, a claim includes within its breadth or scope one or more
 variant embodiments that are not disclosed in the application, but which would
 anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention if found in a reference. The claim
 must be so analyzed and any such variant encountered during the search should be
 recognized.
 

 For any claim capable of such treatment (e.g., a machine or other
 apparatus), the subject matter as defined by the claim may be sketched or diagrammed
 in order to clearly delineate the limitations of the claim. Two or more sketches,
 each of which is as divergent from the disclosure as is permitted by the claim, will
 assist the examiner in determining the claim’s actual breadth or scope. However, an
 applicant will not be required to submit such sketches of claim structure.
 In re Application filed November 16, 1945, 89 USPQ 280, 1951
 C.D. 1, 646 O.G. 5 (Comm’r Pat. 1951).
 

 

 
 904.01(b) Equivalents [R-08.2012]

 All subject matter that is the equivalent of the subject matter as
 defined in the claim, even though different from the definition in the claim, must be
 considered unless expressly excluded by the claimed subject matter. See
 MPEP §
 2181 - § 2184 for a discussion of
 equivalents when a claim employs means or step plus function terminology.
 

 

 
 904.01(c) Analogous Arts [R-08.2012]

 Not only must the art be searched within which the invention claimed
 is classifiable, but also all analogous arts must be searched regardless of where the
 claimed invention is classified.
 

 The determination of what arts are analogous to a particular claimed
 invention is at times difficult. It depends upon the necessary essential function or
 utility of the subject matter covered by the claims, and not upon what it is called
 by the applicant.
 

 For example, for search purposes, a tea mixer and a concrete mixer
 may both be regarded as relating to the mixing art, this being the necessary function
 of each. Similarly a brick-cutting machine and a biscuit cutting machine may be
 considered as having the same necessary function. See MPEP § 2141.01(a) 
 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a
 prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 .
 See MPEP §
 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art
 in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102 . 
 

 

 

 
 904.02 General Search Guidelines [R-07.2022]

 In the examination of an application for patent, an examiner must
 conduct a thorough and complete search of the prior art. A search is considered thorough
 when all areas with the highest probability of finding prior art relevant to the
 invention as it is claimed and described in the specification are identified for search.
 Planning a thorough search of the prior art requires three distinct steps by the
 examiner: (A) identifying the field of search; (B) selecting the proper tool(s) to
 perform the search; and (C) determining the appropriate search strategy for each search
 tool selected. A search is considered complete when each of the identified areas are
 fully considered.
 

 When determining the field of search, three reference sources must be
 considered - domestic patents (including patent application publications), foreign
 patent documents, and nonpatent literature (NPL). A thorough and complete search will
 include the identification and review of the areas within these sources with the highest
 probability of including prior art, thus none of these sources can be eliminated from
 the search unless the examiner has and can justify a reasonable certainty that no
 references, more pertinent than those already identified, are likely to be found in the
 source(s) eliminated. The search areas should cover the claimed subject matter and
 should also cover the disclosed features related to the inventive concept of the claims
 which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. The field of search should be
 prioritized, starting with the area(s) where the invention would most likely be found in
 the prior art. 
 

 Having determined the field of search, the examiner should then
 determine what search tools should be employed in conducting the search. Examiners are
 provided access to a wide variety of both manual and automated search tools. Choice of
 search tools is a key factor in ensuring that the most relevant prior art is found
 during the search. The choice of search tools to be used is based on the examiner’s
 knowledge of the coverage, strengths and weaknesses of the available search tools that
 are appropriate for use in an examiner’s assigned art. For example, a search tool may
 cover foreign patent documents; but, if that coverage does not meet the examiner’s
 current search needs, this should be taken into consideration by the examiner who may
 choose to employ other search tools in order to remedy the deficiency. 
 

 Search tool knowledge is particularly important for examiners in arts
 (e.g., very active, high technology) where patent documents may seriously lag behind
 invention and, consequently, represent a reference source of limited value. These
 examiners must take special care to ensure that their searches include consideration of
 NPL and employ the effective use of tools specialized to cover NPL pertinent to their
 search needs. 
 

 Search needs in some technologies (e.g., chemical structures, DNA
 sequences) are very specialized and can only be met through additional use of specific
 search tools specially constructed and maintained to respond to those needs. These tools
 cover all three reference sources - domestic patents (including patent application
 publications), foreign patent documents, and NPL.
 

 In recognition that there are many available NPL search tools and their
 use is often complex, examiners have been provided and are encouraged to use the
 services of trained professional online search personnel located in the Technology
 Centers’ EICs for NPL searching. See MPEP § 901.06(a) for services available
 in STIC.
 

 In crowded, highly developed arts where most claimed inventions are
 directed to improvements, patent documents, including patent application publications,
 may serve as the primary reference source. Search tool selection in such arts may focus
 heavily on those providing patent document coverage.
 

 Automated search tools covering patent documents usually provide both a
 classified and text search capability. Text search can be powerful, especially where the
 art includes well-established terminology and the search need can be expressed with
 reasonable accuracy in textual terms. However, it is rare that a text search alone will
 constitute a thorough search of patent documents. Some combination of text search with
 other search criteria (e.g., classification, chemical structure, or molecular sequence)
 would be a normal expectation in most technologies. 
 

 Examiners will recognize that it is sometimes difficult to express
 search needs accurately in textual terms. This occurs often, though not exclusively, in
 mechanical arts where, for example, spatial relationships or shapes of mechanical
 components constitute important aspects of the claimed invention. In such situations,
 text searching can still be useful by employing broader text terms, with or without
 classification parameters. The traditional method of browsing all patent documents in
 one or more classifications will continue to be an important part of the search strategy
 when it is difficult to express search needs in textual terms.
 

 Having determined what search tool(s) should be used to conduct the
 search, the examiner should then determine the appropriate search strategy for each
 search tool selected. The appropriate search strategy should be determined by the
 examiner on a case-by-case basis along with consultation with other examiners,
 supervisory patent examiners, and/or trained professional online search personnel, where
 appropriate.
 

 In order for examiners to acquire specialized skills needed to
 determine an appropriate field of search in their specific arts, each Technology Center
 may develop specific supplemental guidance and training for its examiners. This training
 will augment general training and information on search tools that is normally provided
 through the Office of Patent Training and Search and Information Resources
 Administration.
 

 
 904.02(a) Classified Search [R-07.2022]

 A search areas included in a proper field of search normally include
 the classification locations in which the claimed subject matter of an application
 would be properly classified at the time of the application's classification or grant
 of a patent. However, if the above proper classification does not correspond to the
 subject matter found in the claims (e.g., a situation where the proper classification
 corresponds to a disclosed, but unclaimed, embodiment), it is not necessary to search
 areas in which it could reasonably have been determined that there was a low
 probability of finding the best reference(s).
 

 In outlining a field of search, the examiner should note every
 classification location (i.e. group/subgroup of the Cooperative Patent Classification
 and/or class/subclass of the U.S. Patent Classification) under the utilized
 classification system and other organized systems of literature that may have
 material pertinent to the subject matter as claimed, including those which have been
 assigned by a foreign Office, another USPTO examiner, or by the classification
 contractor. Every group/subgroup and secondary classification area of the Cooperative
 Patent Classification, class/subclass of the U.S. Patent Classification, digest, and
 cross-reference art collection pertinent to each type of invention claimed should be
 included, from the largest combination through the various subcombinations to the
 most elementary part. The field of search should extend to all probable areas
 relevant to the claimed subject matter and should cover the disclosed features which
 might reasonably be expected to be claimed. The examiner should consult with other
 examiners and/or supervisory patent examiners, especially with regard to applications
 covering subject matter unfamiliar to the examiner.
 

 The areas to be searched should be prioritized so that the most
 likely areas of finding relevant prior art are searched first. Though areas to be
 searched should be prioritized, a thorough and complete search requires the
 consideration of references from each of the areas where the examiner is likely to
 find pertinent prior art. For documenting the field of search see
 MPEP §
 719.05 . See MPEP § 1302.10 for search
 information printed on the face of a patent.
 

 

 
 904.02(b) Search Tool Selection [R-07.2015]

 Detailed guidance on the choice and use of specific search tools
 can be established only within the context of the special requirements of each
 Technology Center (TC). However, a general methodology following a “decision tree”
 process, set forth below, for making broad decisions in search tool selection is
 suggested.
 

 

 

 
 904.02(c) Internet Searching [R-07.2022]

 The Internet is an Office-approved search tool that may be
 considered when planning and conducting a search for an application. The Internet
 provides the Office the opportunity to enhance operations by enabling patent
 examiners to efficiently locate and retrieve additional sources of information
 relating to a patent application. 
 

 The Office published a Patent Internet Usage Policy to
 establish a policy for use of the Internet by the patent examining corps and other
 organizations within the USPTO. See Internet Usage Policy, 64 F.R.
 33056 (June 21, 1999). Articles 9 and 10 of the Patent Internet Usage Policy, which
 are pertinent to Internet searching and documenting search strategies, are reproduced
 below. Article 9 primarily addresses using the Internet for unpublished application
 searches. As mentioned therein, it is necessary that Internet searches related to
 unpublished applications MUST be limited to the general state of the art and
 formulated in such a way that protects the confidential proprietary intellectual
 property. 
 

 USPTO personnel may also use the Internet to search,
 browse, or retrieve information relating to the claimed invention(s) of a published
 application or proceeding including an application published pursuant to
 35 U.S.C.
 122(b) , a reissue application, or a reexamination proceeding.
 These applications need not be kept in confidence; therefore, the restriction on the
 search queries used when performing an Internet search referenced in Article 9 below
 would not apply to these applications and proceedings. Any search query may include
 terminology related to the general state of the relevant technology, disclosed
 features from applicant’s disclosure and claim terminology. See MPEP § 707.05(e) 
 for information pertaining to the citation of electronic documents,
 MPEP §
 719.05 , subsection II for documenting an Internet search,
 and MPEP §
 502.03 for information pertaining to communications via
 electronic mail.
 

 The Internet is generally a public forum and most
 communications made over the Internet are neither confidential nor secure. All use of
 the Internet by examiners must be conducted in a manner that ensures compliance with
 confidentiality requirements in the statutes, including 35 U.S.C. §
 122 , and regulations. As part of an Internet search, examiners may
 visit social media websites that provide for public interactions, but are not
 authorized to participate on these websites or otherwise solicit assistance with
 patent examination even for published applications. For example, an examiner is not
 authorized to request users of a website to provide additional information not found
 on the website, elaborate further on information already posted on the website, or
 post new information on the website. Additionally, any Internet searching that is
 conducted is to be limited to searching for the information necessary for examination
 of the application or proceeding, such as the state of the art or the presence or
 absence of technical features in the prior art.
 

 INTERNET SEARCHING (ARTICLE 9) The responsibility for formulating individual search strategies
 lies with individual Patent Examiners, Scientific and Technical Information Center
 (STIC) staff, and anyone charged with protecting proprietary application data.
 When the Internet is used to search, browse, or retrieve information relating to a
 patent application which has not been published, other than
 a reissue application or reexamination proceeding, Patent Organization users
 MUST restrict search queries to the general state of the art
 unless the Office has established a secure link over the Internet with a specific
 vendor to maintain the confidentiality of the unpublished patent application.
 Non-secure Internet search, browse, or retrieval activities that could disclose
 proprietary information directed to a specific application which has not been
 published, other than a reissue application or reexamination proceeding, are
 NOT permitted.
 

 This policy also applies to use of the Internet as a
 communications medium for connecting to commercial database providers.
 

 DOCUMENTING SEARCH STRATEGIES (ARTICLE 10) All Patent Organization users of the Internet for patent
 application searches must document their search strategies in accordance with
 established practices and procedures as set forth in MPEP § 719.05 
 II. 
 

 

 

 
 904.03 Conducting the Search [R-07.2022]

 It is a prerequisite to a speedy and just determination of the issues
 involved in the examination of an application that a thorough and complete search,
 commensurate with the limitations appearing in the most detailed claims in the case, be
 made in preparing the first action on the merits so that the second action on the merits
 can be made final or the application allowed with no further searching other than to
 update the original search. It is normally not enough that references be selected to
 meet only the terms of the claims alone, especially if only broad claims are presented;
 but the search should, insofar as possible, also cover all subject matter which the
 examiner reasonably anticipates might be incorporated into applicant’s amendment.
 Applicants can facilitate a thorough and complete search by including, at the time of
 filing, claims varying from the broadest to which they believe they are entitled to the
 most detailed that they would be willing to accept.
 

 In doing a thorough and complete search, the examiner should find and
 cite references that, while not needed for rejecting the claims, would be useful for
 forestalling the presentation of claims to other disclosed subject matter regarded by
 applicant as their invention, by showing that this other subject matter is old or
 obvious.
 

 In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the
 examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the
 applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections
 over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all 
 references that may be available, but only the “best.” (See 37 CFR 1.104(c) .)
 Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others,
 adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. The examiner
 must fully consider all the prior art references cited in the application, including
 those cited by the applicant in a properly submitted Information Disclosure
 Statement.
 

 The best reference should always be the one used in rejecting the
 claims. Sometimes the best reference will have a publication date less than a year prior
 to the application filing date, hence it will be open to being overcome under
 37 CFR
 1.130 or 1.131 . In such circumstances, if a
 second reference exists which cannot be so overcome and which, though inferior, is an
 adequate basis for rejection, the claims should be additionally 
 rejected thereon.
 

 In all references considered, including NPL, foreign patents, and
 domestic patents, the examiner should study the specification or description
 sufficiently to determine the full value of the reference disclosure relative to the
 claimed or claimable subject matter.
 

 

 
 904.04 Search of Related Post-Grant
 Proceedings [R-07.2022]
 

 As explained in MPEP § 904 the examiner is required to
 review specific papers of PTAB post-grant proceedings in related applications. An
 application under examination is sufficiently related to another proceeding, such that a
 complete search requires review of a post grant proceeding, if any one of the following
 conditions are met:
 

 
 1) the examined application is the reissue of a patent
 that was previously or currently is the subject of a post-grant proceeding; 
 

 2) the examined application includes a benefit claim
 under 37 CFR
 1.78 to the filing date of a prior US nonprovisional
 application where the prior US application has issued as a patent and that patent
 was previously or currently is the subject of a post-grant proceeding; 
 

 The examiner will be notified when there is a related
 PTAB post-grant proceeding through the Office’s integrated examination tools. When a
 PTAB post-grant proceeding has been identified, the examiner must compare the claims
 of the examined application with that of challenged patents claims to determine
 whether they have similar scope or similar claim elements . The presence of a
 recorded terminal disclaimer or a non-statutory double patenting rejection between
 the application being examined and patent subject to a post-grant proceeding is
 evidence that the claims have a similar scope or similar claim elements. If the
 claims do not have a similar scope or similar claim elements the examiner will
 annotate the search notes indicating the review was completed. See
 MPEP
 § 719.05 II.A., element K. When the claims are determined
 to have a similar scope or similar claim elements, the examiner is required to
 consider the following:
 

 
 
 1. Petition;

 2. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to the
 Petition;
 

 3. PTAB’s Decision on the Institution: 
 
 a. If instituted, further consider the Patent
 Owner’s response to the Petition;
 

 b. If instituted, further consider the Final
 Written Decision by PTAB; 
 

 
 

 4. If present, any court decisions (e.g. Federal
 Circuit) concerning the case and further PTAB proceedings (e.g. PTAB rehearing or
 remand); and
 

 5. If present, Parties’ supporting evidence, including
 expert declaration.
 

 
 Once the examiner has reviewed the required documents, the
 examiner should document the search as shown in MPEP § 719.05 II.A., element L.
 

 Where the examined application shares a common inventor
 or common assignee applicant with another application or patent, the examiner should
 exercise professional judgment in determining whether a complete search would include
 review of the other application or patent as well as any post-grant proceedings on the
 other application or patent.
 

 For reexamination proceedings, see MPEP §§ 2256 and
 2286.01 . 
 

 

 [top] 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 901-Prior Art 
 901.01-Canceled Matter in U.S. Patent Files 
 901.01(a)-Ordering of Patented and Abandoned Provisional and Nonprovisional Application Files 

 
 

 901.02-Abandoned Applications 

 901.03-Pending Applications 

 901.04-U.S. Patents 
 901.04(a)-Kind Codes 

 
 

 901.05-Foreign Patent Documents 
 901.05(a)-Citation Data 

 901.05(b)-Other Significant Data 

 901.05(c)-Obtaining Copies 

 901.05(d)-Translation 

 
 

 901.06-Nonpatent Publications 
 901.06(a)-Scientific and Technical Information Center (STIC) 

 901.06(b)-Borrowed Publications 

 901.06(c)-Alien Property Custodian Publications 

 901.06(d)-Abstracts, Abbreviatures, and Defensive Publications 

 
 

 901.07-Patent Family Information 

 901.08-Global Dossier Public Access 

 
 

 902-Search Tools and Classification Information 
 902.01-Classification Manual for the U.S. Patent Classification System 
 902.01(a)-Index to the U.S. Patent Classification System 

 
 

 902.02-Class and Subclass Definitions in USPC 
 902.02(a)-Definition Notes in USPC 

 902.02(b)-[Reserved] 

 
 

 902.03-Classification Information 
 902.03(a)-Patent Classification Home Page on the Internet 

 902.03(b)-Patent Classification Home Page on the USPTO Intranet 

 902.03(c)-[Reserved] 

 902.03(d)-[Reserved] 

 902.03(e)-Automated Search Tools: PE2E SEARCH 

 
 

 
 

 903-Classification in USPC 
 903.01-Statutory Authority 

 903.02-Basis and Principles of Classification in USPC 
 903.02(a)-[Reserved] 

 903.02(b)-Scope of a Class in the USPC 

 
 

 903.03-Availability of Foreign Patents 

 903.04-Classifying Applications for Publication as a Plant Patent Application Publication in USPC 

 903.05-Addition, Deletion, or Transfer of U.S. Design Patents by USPC Classification 

 903.06-Harmonized Subclasses 

 903.07-Classifying and Cross-Referencing Design and Plant Applications at Allowance 
 903.07(a)-Cross-Referencing Design and Plant Applications — Keep Systematic Notes During Prosecution 

 
 

 903.08-[Reserved] 
 903.08(a)-[Reserved] 

 903.08(b)-[Reserved] 

 903.08(c)-[Reserved] 

 903.08(d)-[Reserved] 

 903.08(e)-[Reserved] 

 
 

 903.09-[Reserved] 
 903.09(a)-[Reserved] 

 
 

 
 

 904-How to Search 
 904.01-Analysis of Claims 
 904.01(a)-Variant Embodiments Within Scope of Claim 

 904.01(b)-Equivalents 

 904.01(c)-Analogous Arts 

 
 

 904.02-General Search Guidelines 
 904.02(a)-Classified Search 

 904.02(b)-Search Tool Selection 

 904.02(c)-Internet Searching 

 
 

 904.03-Conducting the Search 

 904.04-Search of Related Post-Grant Proceedings 

 
 

 905-Cooperative Patent Classification 
 905.01-Classification Scheme for CPC 
 905.01(a)-CPC Titles 
 905.01(a)(1)-References within CPC Titles 

 905.01(a)(2)-Notes Found in CPC schemes 

 905.01(a)(3)-Warnings Found in CPC schemes 

 905.01(a)(4)-Guidance Headings Found in CPC Schemes 

 
 

 
 

 905.02-CPC Definitions 

 905.03-Classifying in CPC 
 905.03(a)-The CPC Database 

 905.03(b)-Approach to classification in CPC 

 905.03(c)-Combination Sets 

 
 

 
 

 906-International Classification of Patents for Inventions 

 907-Locarno Classification Designations 

 908-[Reserved] 

 909-Routing and Docketing of Applications 
 909.01-Assignment, Transfer and Classification Challenges under Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) 
 909.01(a)-New Applications in CPC 

 909.01(b)-Classification and Assignment to Examiner in CPC 

 909.01(c)-Immediate Inspection of Amendments 

 909.01(d)-Classification Challenge Procedure in CPC 

 
 

 909.02-Applications: Assignment and Transfer in USPC 
 909.02(a)-New Design and Plant Patent Applications under 35 U.S.C. 161 

 909.02(b)-Classification and Assignment to Examiner 

 909.02(c)-Reserved 

 909.02(d)-Transfer Procedure 

 909.02(e)-General Guidelines Governing the Assignment of Nonprovisional Design and Plant Applications for Examination 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Accessibility 

 Privacy Policy 

 Terms of Use 

 Security 

 Emergencies/Security Alerts 

 Information Quality Guidelines 

 
 

 
 
 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act 

 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act 

 Budget & Performance 

 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

 
 

 
 
 Department of Commerce NoFEAR Act Report 

 Regulations.gov 

 STOP!Fakes.gov 

 Department of Commerce 

 USA.gov 

 
 

 
 
 Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) 

 Careers 

 Site Index 

 Contact Us 

 Submit Feedback 

 
 

 
 This page is owned by Patents.

 Last Modified: 
 
 03/09/2026 20:50:54