Compliance Reminder: Distinguish Between Prophetic Examples and Working Examples

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) issued a notice titled “Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application,” reminding patent applicants of their obligation to ensure that patent applications are written in a manner that clearly distinguishes prophetic examples with predicted experimental results from working examples having actual experimental results.1 According to the Patent Office, the distinction must be clear in order to fulfill the written description and enablement requirements and comply with the applicant’s duty of disclosure.

Prophetic examples describe experiments that have not in fact been performed; they provide estimates that describe simulated or predicted results. In contradistinction, working examples are work performed or experiments conducted that have generated actual results. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) states that prophetic examples should not be presented in a patent application using the past tense.2 Prophetic examples may be described in the future or present tense. Drafting a patent application in this manner enables readers to distinguish between actual working examples and prophetic examples.

What’s Ahead?

The Patent Office does not frequently provide a practice reminder, unless prior patent applications have caused issues or problems during the examination process. This notice advises applicants that the Patent Office will be reviewing specifications very carefully with respect to the wording of working versus prophetic examples. Thus, to ensure a smooth examination process with respect to this issue, applicants should be careful when presenting examples in their specifications. This notice intimates that the Patent Office might issue written description and/or enablement rejections, and does not address what types of remedial action might be possible during prosecution to overcome such rejections. In addition, by referencing an applicant’s duty of disclosure obligation, the Patent Office has added another factor applicants and their representatives should consider when drafting their patent applications.


1 Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application, 86 Fed. Reg. 35074 (July 1, 2021).

2 MPEP 608.01(p), subsection II.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.