35 USC 102 35 USC 102(a)

35 USC 102(b) 35 USC 102(c)

35 USC 102(d) 35 USC 102(e)

35 USC102(f) 35 USC 102(g)

35 USC 101 35 USC 112

Prior art includes:
- patent for the same subject matter
anywhere in the world
For anticipation:
- public knowledge in the US only
o must be used in this country
- publication anywhere in the world
- use by others in the US only
refers to different inventive entity
- abandoned inventions will be rejected
- if invention abandoned cannot be
patented later
o ie – if 10 yrs pass w/out filing
o delay in making first application is not
sufficient to determine abandonment
Patent was filed by another with an earlier filing
date
- doesn’t apply to apps filed before 20
NOV 2000
- to qualify as ref: US patent, US app or
WIPO publication of international app
- International app
o In filing date after 20 NOV 2000,
designate US, publish under PCT
Art21(2) in English
- (g)(1) conflict w/ priority during course of
an interference
- (g)(2) invention made in this country
- US – 1st to invent rather than 1st to invent
- Constructive reduction is date of filing at
PTO
- Actual reduction – sufficiently tested to
its intended proven purpose
- Diligence – time b/w actual red and
disclosure
- Enabling disclosure
o Enablement found in specification
o Must be consistent with published
info
- Best mode
o To restrain inventors to conceal
preferred embodiments
o No requirement to update
- Dependent claim can’t be broader than
claim it depends from
- Claims limitation must use “means for” or
Reference must teach every aspect of the
invention – either explicitly or impliedly
- if patent or publication printed or issued
more than 1 year or public knowledge or use
in US = rejection
- Statutory bar – inventor discloses work
more than 1 year before obt. Patent
- Experimental use doesn’t bar a patent but
commercial exploitation is incidental
- person entitled to patent unless invention
1st patented or subject of invention certified by
app., legal reps or assigns >12mths before in
US
- 4 conditions
o More than 12 months filing of
foreign app
o Foreign filed by same US app
o Must be granted before US filing
date
o Same invention must be involved
- if subject matter invented by someone else
and not inventor(s) listed
- inventor listed must be those exactly those
that invented work
- no requirement that inventor be the one to
reduce to practice as long done on their behalf
- inventions will be granted for “any new &
useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof”
- Rejections based on lack of utility
o Any substantially unaltered thing
occurring in nature
o Printed matter
o A scientific principle divorced from
tangible structure
o Mathematical discoveries not
 “step for” patentable

ACCESS AMENDMENTS

APPLICATION TYPES NONPROVISIONAL APPLICATION

CONVERSION OF
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION NONPROVISIONAL TO
PROVISIONAL APPLICATION

CONVERSION OF PROVISIONAL
TO NONPROVISIONAL CONTINUATION APPLICATION
APPLICATION
 CONTINUATION-IN-PART
APPLICATION
(CIP)
- Must be signed by
o Attorney or agent of record
o Registered attorney or agent acting
under 37 CFR 1.34(a)
o Assignee of entire interest or all
assignees of partial
o All applicants
- New matter includes:
o Matter wholly unsupported by
original disclosure
o Adding specific %s or compounds
when original was broader
o Omission of a step from a method
- Contains at least 1 claim
- Is NOT abandoned after 12 months
- Requires an oath or declaration
- Requires a petition under 37 C.F.R.
1.53(c)(2) and a fee
- The nonprovisional will become a
provisional application and will keep the
original filing date to the nonprovisional
CONTINUED PROSECUTION
APPLICATION
(CPA)
- Files open to public
o Issued patents or stat invent.
Registrations
o All reissue applications
o All requests for re-exam. or papers
related
o Files of any interference
- Pending or non-published abandoned patents
may be viewed by
o No members of the public 
confidential
o Any of the inventors except in cases
where assignee requested otherwise
o Any assignee; any license of entire
interest
o Any attny/agent of record or authorized
by inventor
- Nonprovisional
- Provisional
- Conversion of nonprovisional to
provisional application
- Conversion of provisional to a
nonprovisional
- Continuation Application
- Continuation-In-Part Application
- Continued Prosecution Application
- Contains no claims
- Is abandoned after 12 months
- No oath or declaration is required

- If examiner rejects 1 or more claims filed
in original app – continuation may be filed w/in
3 months of rejection
o Requires new fee & newly written
claims & receives new filing date
o No new matter is accepted
- Must be filed during pendency of parent
- Need only have one inventor in common
- Continuation application of prior
nonprovisional app claiming a design may be
filed as a CPA
- CPAs filed under 37 CR 1.53(d)
o Have same serial number as its
parents
o Cannot be filed for provisional
apps
o Can be filed for PCT apps in
national stage
CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
DUTY TO DISCLOSE
ISSUE FEE
- In case of a successful conversion – only
one app & that app has single filing date – date
of provisional app
- Conversion will adversely impact on the
term of any patent to issue from the application
- Conversion will result in the term of any
patent to issue from app to be measured from at
least the filing date of the provisional app
o Can avoid by filing nonprovisional
app claiming benefit of provisional app under
35 USC 119(e)
- If inventor makes improvements after they
file original app  may file CIP to cover
improvements
- New material will have new filing date, old
material will have date of original application
- 1st app must be copending
- CIP contains new matter over – some
substantial portion of all earlier apps repeated
- Fresh set of papers w/ oath must be sent
- Filed before parent app becomes
abandoned
- Filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b)
DESIGN PATENTS
INVENTORSHIP
MAILING
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSMISSION
 MAILING
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAILING
HAND DELIVERY
- Term is 14 years from date of grant
- There is no maintenance fee
- Only one claim is present
- Distinct invention is mandatory
- May not file under PCT
- Period of foreign priority is 6 months
- May not file a provisional application
- Inventors may apply for a patent jointly
even if:
o They did not physically work
together on invention or they did not work at
same time on invention
o They made unequal
contributions, meant they each made
different claims (so long as they pertain to
the same invention)
MAILING
EXPRESS MAIL
MAINTENANCE FEES
- When to use
o Through error w/out deceptive
intent – failure to make reference to prior
copending app & failure doesn’t affect what is
claimed but ref in a record of application
o Error w/out deceptive intent, prior
app ID’d elsewhere, petition under 37CFR
1.324 & fee
- 2 statutory requirements
o Applicant’s mistake (clerical or
typo)
o Correction must not involve
changes that constitute new matter
- All information material to patentability of
invention must be disclosed to Office w/ candor
& good faith
- Rules governing duty
o Info includes more than just patents
& printed publications  all presently known
info
o Exists until app becomes
abandoned
o Exists even after patent is issued
- Who had duty to disclose?
o Each inventor, reg practitioner,
assignee, every other person involved in prep
of patent
 - Time period for payment of issue fee is
statutory and cannot be extended
o Fee can be paid late but app will
- Must accompany a facsimile and is used
have become abandoned during time period
as proof of establishing when fax was received
- Possible to withdraw from issue & then file
by PTO
continuation application
o PTO will date stamp corres. when
- 37 CFR 1.137 discusses paying issue fee
received
late
o Faxes can’t be used for anything
o Same procedure as reviving
to obtain an app filing date
application
o Individual may state the date on
o States app is basically abandoned
which the paper will be transmitted
& will have to be revived
 Prove unavoidable or
unintentional delay
- May be used for any type of
correspondence
- It will be considered filed on the date of - Date is based on date correspondence is
the deposit, whatever day of the week that sent, never on the date it is received
may be - Must be addressed correctly with enough
- Correspondence must state “Express postage for 1st class mail & must include a
Mail Post Office to Addressee” signed dated certificate of mailing with each
o Service must be provided by US piece of correspondence Listed
postal svc - Only certain types of correspondence may
o “date in” must be entered by the be sent via a Certificate of Mailing
USPS and the mailing label must be
completed by the USPS
- Required on all patents issued after 12
DEC 1980, except design or plant patents
- Fees are due at 3 time periods thru
patent life
o 3yrs & 6 month after grant -
$830.00
o 7yrs & 6 month after grant -
- Hand delivery is only available during
$1,900.00
Office hours, you should receive a receipt back
o 11yrs & 6 month after grant -
for the papers as proof of their delivery
$2,910.00
- Grace period of 6 months (4yrs, 8yrs &
12yrs)
- When paying during 6 month grace
period, there is a surcharge required in
addition to the payment of the maintenance
fee

NEW MATTER PATENT TERMS

 PROTEST SMALL ENTITY

STATUTORY INVENTION
PETITION TO MAKE SPECIAL
REGISTRATION

CLAIMS CLAIMS

DEPENDENT CLAIMS DEPENDENT CLAIMS

- Utility and plant patents filed after 8 JUN

- Matter not in original specifications, claims,
1995
or drawings is usually considered new matter
o Term ends 20 yrs from date of
- Where new matter is confined to
patent app filed
amendments in the specification a review of the
- Design patents end after 14 years – term
examiner’s request for cancellation is by way of
begins on date patent issues
petition
- Continued prosecution application (CPA)
- Where alleged new matter is introduced or
– will have same app # and filing date of
affects the claims, thus necessitating their
parent
rejection on this ground, the question becomes
- Reissues – term is unexpired part of
an appealable one
parent
- Small entity receive a 50% reduction in
certain fees
o Owner or officer of app may sign - Any member of public may submit a
statement for this not attorney protest & attorney may file protest w/out naming
- Those who qualify client
o Independent inventors (w/ no - Unless a protestor granted access to
assignment) original app – protestor not entitled any info from
o Small businesses (less than 500 PTO, even mere fact that such app exists
empl.) - Protest must be submitted prior to mailing
o Nonprofit organizations of a Notice of Allowance  application must be
- Request refund based on change in pending when examiner receives the info
small entity status – petition under 37 CFR
1.28(a)(b) with in 3 months
- DO NOT require fee to make special
o Illness/health of applicant
o Age of applicant
o Environmental contributions
- Original SIR can be abandoned and
o Enhancement of energy sources
replaced by a continued application
- DOES require fee to make special
o In this case, applicant will get the
o Prospective manufacture -
earlier filing date
Infringement
o Applicant must file an express
o Safer DNA – HIV/AIDS and
abandonment of the original application and a
cancer
timely request or petition to withdraw the
o Superconductivity - countering
request for an SIR prior to the publication of
terrorism the SIR
o Biotech apps filed by small
entiies
o All other instances where petition
to make…
- Rules
- Grammatical Rules
o Placed at end of specification
o Claims should begin with “I (or
o If more than 1 – separate by line of
we) claim” or “The invention claimed is”
indentation
o Claim is divided by a colon (:)
o Arranged in order of scope – 1st is
which generally describes things or steps
broadest
o Either ; or , separates each
o Claims of like species should be
paragraph
grouped together
o Last step should have an “and”
o Process & product claims need to
after the semicolon (; and)
be separately grouped
o Each claim should begin w/ a
o Any measurements – Metric 1st
capital and end with a period (only 1st word
then English
capitalized)
o May contain tables if necessary
- RULES
o Dependent claim must further - Series of singular dependent claims is
limit the subject matter of a previous claim allowed where a dependent claim refers to
o No minimum or max # of preceding claim, which in turns, refers to another
dependent claims preceding claim
o Dependent claim may refer back - Since independent claims are broadest
to any preceding claim- may be a string of claims – broadening of dependent claim cannot
these broaden scope of invention
o Claim depending from a - Lesser burden of proof may be required to
depending claim should not be separated make out prima facie obviousness for product-
from any claim which does not also depend by-process then when product is claimed in
(directly or indirectly), from the dependent conventional fashion
claim
MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS

MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIMS

CORRESPONDENCE
MARKUSH CLAIMS

ESSENTIAL MATERIAL ESSENTIAL MATERIAL

PRIOR ART PRIOR ART

Enabling References Prima Facie

EFFECTIVE FILING DATE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE

Continuing or divisional of Continuing or divisional of

earlier US application earlier international application

- Series of dependent claims that refer
back in the alternative form to more than 1
preceding independent or dependent
- Determining fees – count up all
dependents
o Claim 2 depend from 1 = total of
2
o Claim 3 depend from 1 or 2 =
total of 3
- Correspondence will be held with the
listed attorney or agent
- An application number must be used to
identify a patent application in all
correspondence
- Material is considered necessary if it:
o Is necessary to describe the
claimed invention
o Provides enabling disclosure of
the claimed invention
o Describes the best mode
- Essential mat. may be incorporated by
ref if it’s
o a US patent
o a pending US application
o an abandoned app less than
20yrs old – to same extent as a copending
app
- Where claimed and prior art products are
identical or substantially identical in structure
or composition, or are produced by identical or
substantially identical processes  prima facie
case of either anticipation or obviousness has
been established
- Rules governing
o May only refer to one set of claims
o Cannot depend on another multiple
dep clm
o Cannot depend on more than 1
previous
o May not serve as basis for multiple
dep clm
o Will not contain limitations of all
alternate claims
o Must be considered in same
manner as plurality of single dep claims
o Restriction may be required b/w
embodiments of multiple dependent claim
- Acceptable form of alternative expressions
o Always contains the phrase
“consisting of” and the conjunctive “and”
 They never contain “or”
- Example
o R is selected from the group
consisting of A, B, C and D
o “chosen from the group
consisting of” and “chosen from the group
consisting of essentially of”
- Material NOT allowed to be incorporated
by ref in US utility application includes:
o Essential material from foreign
patent or app
o Matter from a magazine article
o A US article that incorporates the
material from another patent by reference
- Nonessential material is background
material – may be incorporated by reference
from
o Patents or apps published in the
US
o From publications or foreign
patents
o From a prior filed, commonly
owned US app
- Level of disclosure required w/in a
reference to make it an “enabling disclosure” is
the same no matter what type of prior art is at
issue
- Does not matter whether prior art ref is a
US patent, foreign patent, a printed pub, or other
form
- Reference contains an enabling disclosure
if public was in possession of the claimed
invention before the date of the invention
- Shows that app’s invention is not novel
and is anticipated tf will be rejected
- Same as the earliest filing date in the line - Same as the earliest filing date in the line
of continuing or divisionals of continuing or divisional

EFFECTIVE FILING DATE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE

CIP or earlier US or international app Applications claiming foreign priority

EFFECTIVE FILING DATE

REJECTION ON PRIOR ART
Application claiming priority
102 vs 103
to a provisional application

OVERCOMING REJECTIONS OVERCOMING REJECTIONS

35 USC 102(a) 35 USC 102(a)

OVERCOMING REJECTIONS OVERCOMING REJECTIONS

35 USC 102(b) 35 USC 102(b)

 OVERCOMING REJECTIONS
35 USC 102(c)
- Same as the filing date of the US
application (the filing date of the foreign priority
document is not the effective filing date,
although the foreign filing date may be used to
overcome certain applications)
- 35 USC 102 – focuses on the novelty
and loss of right to patent
o Claim is anticipated by reference
- 35 USC 103 – refers to nonobvious
subject matter
o References must be modified in
order to meet the claims
- Can be overcome by:
o Perfecting a claim to priority
under 35 USC 119(a)-(d)
o Amending the claims to be
patentably distinguishable over the prior art
o Persuasively arguing claims are
patentably distinguishable from the prior art
o Filing affidavit under 37 CFR
1.132 that ref invention is not by “another”
o Filing affidavit under CFR 1.131
to “swear back”
- Persuasively arguing that the claims are
patentably distringuishable from the prior art
- Amending the claims to be patentably
dinstringuishable from the prior art
- Perfecting the priority
o Amending spec to contain
specific reference to prior application
o Filing app data sheet contain
specific reference to prior application
- Has to be at least 1 intermediate
application between provisional &
nonprovisional
OVERCOMING REJECTIONS
35 USC 102(d)
- New claims in the CIP have the filing date
of the new application
- Claims supported by the earlier parent
application will receive the same filing date as
the earlier application
- Filing date of the provisional application
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in
this country or patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country before the
invention
- Applies when the reference has a
publication date earlier than the effective filing
date & it is not the applicant’s own work
- Asks if the invention was public or
patented anywhere else in the world
- Ask if it was on sale in this country, or in
public use
o Public use must be in the US
o Foreign sales do not count
- 1 year time bar is measured form US filing
date
- Market testing is not proper exception to
bar
- Experimental use does not bar a patent
- ∆ b/w 102(a) – relates to invention date &
 102(b) – relates to filing date

- Establishes 4 conditions
- Where the invention becomes abandoned
o Foreign app must be filed more
- If it is abandoned it cannot be patented
then 12 mths before effective filing date of
- Abandonment must be a deliberate
US app
surrender of patent rights
 Continuation-in-part o Does not have to be expressly
breaks chain of priority
abandoned
o Foreign & US app must be filed
o It can be expressed or implied
by the same applicant, legal reps or assigns
either by actions or inactions of the inventors
o Foreign app must have actually
- A mere lapse of time will not bar a patent
issued as a patent or an inventor’s o Exception is when there is a priority
certificate
contest under USC 102(g) & applicant
o Same invention must be involved
abandons, suppresses or conceals the
- Cannot filed an app if have foreign pat invention
for >1yr

OVERCOMING RJECTIONS OVERCOMING REJECTIONS

35 USC 102(e) 35 USC 102(e)

For a reference based on a regular US

For a reference based on a regular US
provisional app with a priority/benefit
application filed with no claims for
claim under 35 USCC 119(e) or 120 to a
benefit or priority:
prior US provisional or nonprov app:
What is the 102(e)(1) date?
What is the 102(e)(1) date?
What is the 102(e)(2) date?
What is the 102(e)(2) date?

For a reference based on a regular US
application with a priority/benefit
claim under 35 USC 119(a)-(d) to a
prior foreign application:
What is the 102(e)(1) date?
What is the 102(e)(2) date?
For a reference based on national stage
of int’l app if filed on or after 29 NOV,
2000, designates US but not published
in English under PCT Art 21(2)?
What is the 102(e)(1) date for an int;l
app by WIPO?
What is 102(e)(1) date for publication
USPTO?
What is 102(e)(2) date for patent?
For a reference based on a reg US app
that is a continuation of an int’l app filed
on or after 29 NOV 2000, designating US
and published in English under PCT Art
21(2):
What is the 102(e)(1) date for an int;l app
by WIPO?
What is 102(e)(1) date for publication
USPTO?
What is 102(e)(2) date for patent?
- Most used when the publication or issue
date of the reference is too recent for the
reference to the applied under 35 USC (a) or
(b)
- Allows for certain prior art to be applied
against the claims as of its effective US date
- Where “patent was filed by another
with an earlier filing date”
- Inventive entity of app must be ∆ from ref
- Reference date is the filing date not date
of inventor’s conception or reduction to
practice
For a reference based on the national stage
of an int’l app if filed on or after November
29, 2000, designates the US and is published
in English under PCT Article 21(2):
What is the 102(2)(1) date for an int’l app
by WIPO?
What is the 102(e)(1) date for a publication
by USPTO?
What is the 102(e)(2) date for a patent
For a reference based on the national
state of int’l app if filed prior to 29 NOV
2000, designating the US and published
in any language under PCT Art 21(2):
What is the 102(e)(1) date for an int;l
app by WIPO?
What is 102(e)(1) date for publication
USPTO?
What is 102(e)(2) date for patent?
For a reference based on a US app that is a
continuation of an int’l app filed on or after
29 NOV 200 but not published in English
under PCT Art 21(2):
What is the 102(e)(1) date for an int;l app
by WIPO?
What is 102(e)(1) date for publication
USPTO?
What is 102(e)(2) date for patent?
How to overcome
- Persuasively argue claims are patentably
distinguishable from the prior art
- Amending claims to be patentably
distinguish.
- Filing and affidavit or declaration under 37
CFR 1.132 showing ref invent. is not by
“another”
- File an affidavit or declaration under 37
CFR 1.131 (swearing back) showing prior
invention
- Perfect claim to priority under 35 USC
119(a)-(d)
- Perfect priority under 35 USC 119(e) or
120
- 102(e)(1) – the date the first US
provisional or nonprovisonal application was - 102(e)(1) – the date is the regular US
filed application was filed

- 102(e)(2) – the date the first US - 102(e)(2) – the date is the regular US
provisional or nonprovisional application was application was filed
fied

- 102(e)(1) – the date is the regular US

- 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO –
application was filed
filing date of the international application
- 102(e)(2) – the date is the regular US
- 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO
application was filed
– filing date of the international application
- Here the date of the foreign app doesn’t
- 102(e)(2) date for patent – filing date of
count under 102(e), just the date of the first
international application
regular US app

- 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO – - 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO –
There is none There is none

- 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO - 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO –
– There is none There is none

- 102(e)(2) date for patent – The filing date
of the international application
- Int’l publication by WIPO can be applied
under 102(a) and (b) as of its publication date
- 102(e)(2) date for patent – There is none
- Although it cannot be applied under 102(e)
the int’l publication by WIPO can be applied
under 102(a) and (b) as of its publication date

- 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO –

There is none
- 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO
– the filing date of the regular US app that
claims benefit of the int’l app
- 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO –
The filing date of the international application
- 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO –
The filing date of the international application

- 102(e)(2) date for patent – The filing date - 102(e)(2) date for patent – The filing date
of the regular US app that claims the benefit of of the international application
international application

For a reference based on a regular US

app that is a continuation of an int’l
app filed prior to 29 NOV 200,
published in any language: OVERCOMING REJECTIONS
What is the 102(e)(1) date for an int;l
app by WIPO? 35 USC 102(f)
What is 102(e)(1) date for publication
USPTO?
What is 102(e)(2) date for patent?
 OVERCOMING REJECTIONS OVERCOMING REJECTIONS

35 USC 102(g) 35 USC 102(g)

OVERCOMING REJECTIONS
35 USC 103
35 USC 103(a)

OVERCOMING REJECTIONS OVERCOMING REJECTIONS

35 USC 103(b) 35 USC 103(c)

Factors that support obviousness

- When the “applicant is not the inventor”

- 102(e)(1) date for an int’l app for WIPO –
- Even if just some of the inventors are left
There is none
out, this rule will bar a patent
- Listed inventor must be exactly those
- 102(e)(1) date for publication by USPTO –
who invented the actual work
the filing date of the regular US app that claims
- Used in cases the applicant derived the
benefit of the int’l app
invention from another inventor
- One must contribute to the conception of
- 102(e)(2) date for patent – The filing date
the invention in order to qualify as an inventor
of the regular US app that claims the benefit of
- An inventor may consider & adopt
international application
suggestions from any sources

- Suppression and concealment
o Need not be attributed to inventor
- Conception
- Reduction to practice
- Simultaneous inventions
- Diligence
o Time b/w concept and reduction
to practice
- Obviousness
o Invention as a whole must be
considered to determine obviousness
Establish prima facie case of obvness 3 criteria
- Must be some suggestion or motivation
either in ref or knowledge available to the
public to modify the ref or combine teachings
- Must be a reasonable expectation of
success
- Ref must teach or suggest all the claim
limitations
Arguments against obviousness rejection
- Person skilled in the art wouldn’t see
combo suggested by the examiner as obvious
- Resulting combo is not the claimed
invention
- Subject matter which would otherwise be
prior art to the claimed invention & the claimed
invention itself must be commonly owned at
the time the invention was made
- Basis for interference practice in the US
- (g)(1) – may be used when a question
regarding the priority of the invention is
discovered during the course of an interference
- (g)(2) – the invention was made in this
country by another inventor who had not
abandoned, suppressed or concealed it
- 3 critical components
o Prior invention must’ve been made in
the US
o Prior invention must not have been
abdn, etc
o Partial exception is made 4 commonly
owned inv
- Based on obviousness of the subject
matter
- Appropriate if someone skilled in the art
would consider the invention obvious over the
prior art
- Only applicable to biotech processes
Requirements
- Biotech process & compositions should be
in the same app or separate apps w/ same filing
date
- Biotech process & compositions must be
owned by the same person at time the process
was invented
- Patent issued on process must include
claims to composition of matter involved with the
process – if 2 ∆ pats must expire at same time
- Aesthic design changes
- Elimination of a step or element and its
function
- Automating a manual activity
- Changes in size, shape or sequence of
adding ingredients
- Making object portable, integral,
separable, adjustable or continuous, reversal,
duplication or rearrangement of parts
- Purifying an old product
- -

- -

- -

- -

- -