Compliance with the utility requirement (MPEP 2107)

• The following Guidelines establish the policies and procedures to be followed by Office personnel in the evaluation of any patent application for compliance with the utility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Utility 요건은 101 및 112조 (a) 2곳에 규정되어 있음
• An invention has a well-established utility if (i) a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately appreciate why the invention is useful based on the characteristics of the invention (e.g., properties or applications of a product or process), and (ii) the utility is specific, substantial, and credible. (1) PHOSITA 기준에서 발명이 useful (유용) 하다고 판단할 수 있다면, 이것은 “well-established utility”이라 함; 특히, well-established utility 는 “readily apparent” (즉시 확인 가능할 정도로 명확) 해야 함
• If the applicant has asserted that the claimed invention is useful for any particular practical purpose (i.e., it has a "specific and substantial utility") and the assertion would be considered credible by a person of ordinary skill in the art, do not impose a rejection based on lack of utility. (2) 출원인이 발명이 useful 하다고 주장한 경우, PHOSITA 입장에서 그러한 주장이 신뢰할 수 있는 것인지 검토
• Any rejection based on lack of utility should include a detailed explanation why the claimed invention has no specific and substantial credible utility. 심사관이 상기 (1) 또는 (2) 에 의하여 발명이 utility 를 갖췄음에 대하여 거절하는 경우, 그 상세한 사유를 기재하여 거절해야 함 (즉, prima facie case of no utility 를 입증해야 함)
• If the applicant has not asserted any specific and substantial utility for the claimed invention and it does not have a readily apparent well-established utility, impose a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, emphasizing that the applicant has not disclosed a specific and substantial utility for the invention. Also impose a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, on the basis that the applicant has not disclosed how to use the invention due to the lack of a specific and substantial utility. 101 에 근거한 utility 거절과 112(a) 에 근거한 거절의 차이점 – 출원인이 “substantial utility” 를 기재하지 않았고, well-established utility 도 존재하지 않는 경우, 101 에 근거하여 “발명이 substantial utility 없음”으로 거절이유 발행; 출원인이 명세서에 specific and substantial utility (how to use the invention) 를 기재하지 않았으므로, 112 (a) 위반으로 거절이유 발행
• Once a prima facie showing of no specific and substantial credible utility has been properly established, the applicant bears the burden of rebutting it. The applicant can do this by amending the claims, by providing reasoning or arguments, or by providing evidence in the form of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 or a patent or a printed publication that rebuts the basis or logic of the prima facie showing. 거절이유에 대하여, 출원인은 청구항 보정, utility 하다는 반박, declaration (선언), 또는 서면 증거로써 발명의 utility 를 증명할 수 있음